Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Is there a Crime Flow Chart

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Is there a Crime Flow Chart

    For those who learn better by visuals.....stumbled across this on FB not sure who came up with it.

    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    74
    I like it. Maybe we don't need lawyers after all.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by youngck View Post
    I like it. Maybe we don't need lawyers after all.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    It would at least reduce the market greatly especially for state lawyers who prosecute silly non crimes as crimes.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I like it, but I have two issues.

    First of all, it is possible to commit an act of aggression against a community, and therefore "society" (depending on your definition). For instance, as homeowners are entitled to "quiet enjoyment of their property", certain limited & reasonable noise ordinances may be preferable to forcing each aggrieved homeowner to sue a potential abuser. Violation of such could be described as a crime against the community, as the individual victims likely will not be represented in court (although hopefully they initiated the complaint). That does not mean the act of aggression is any less real, nor does it necessarily mean that such an approach is inappropriate for minor but common torts.

    Of course I agree that the overwhelming "crimes against society" are in fact mala prohibita offenses, but I still found that something of an over-simplication. The criterion is whether an act of aggression against right exists, not whether the victim is possibly definable as "the community".

    Secondly, I find defining negative rights as "life, liberty, and property" to be at either vague, or circular. If liberty is meant in the most basic terms, the definition is vague and incomplete.

    If, however, "liberty" is meant exhaustively, then this definition becomes circular, as it essentially attempts to define the sphere of right as itself: "the sphere of right extends to all such things as are our liberties".

    "Well, what exactly are our liberties?"

    "They are things which fall within the sphere of right."

    This is why I prefer to define right recursively, as it avoids the chicken-and-egg issue AND being circular. (Note that the difference between recursion and circularity is subtle, but immensely significant all the same.)

    So, the question isn't whether "an act violates an individual's life, liberty, and property", it's whether an act infringes upon another's ability to act with equivalent freedom.

    I know it's just a flow chart, but still.

    By the way, I was playing Assassins Creed 4, and the main character totally nailed my definition of right. While my definition is ultimately Jeffersonian in inspiration, as far as I am aware I'm the first to insist on the definition being properly recursive (possibly due to recursion being an under-appreciated technique in the era before computer science). I may be wrong on that point, however, because the recursive nature of rights and freedom is exactly what the writers of the game had their character express so perfectly. Either somebody has expressed it as I do and I'm unaware, or such a definition naturally appeals to programmers etc.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-13-2014 at 10:27 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I like it, but I have two issues.

    First of all, it is possible to commit an act of aggression against a community, and therefore "society" (depending on your definition). For instance, as homeowners are entitled to "quiet enjoyment of their property", certain limited & reasonable noise ordinances may be preferable to forcing each aggrieved homeowner to sue a potential abuser. Violation of such could be described as a crime against the community, as the individual victims likely will not be represented in court (although hopefully they initiated the complaint). That does not mean the act of aggression is any less real, nor does it necessarily mean that such an approach is inappropriate for minor but common torts.

    Of course I agree that the overwhelming "crimes against society" are in fact mala prohibita offenses, but I still found that something of an over-simplication. The criterion is whether an act of aggression against right exists, not whether the victim is possibly definable as "the community".

    Secondly, I find defining negative rights as "life, liberty, and property" to be at either vague, or circular. If liberty is meant in the most basic terms, the definition is vague and incomplete.

    If, however, "liberty" is meant exhaustively, then this definition becomes circular, as it essentially attempts to define the sphere of right as itself: "the sphere of right extends to all such things as are our liberties".

    "Well, what exactly are our liberties?"

    "They are things which fall within the sphere of right."

    This is why I prefer to define right recursively, as it avoids the chicken-and-egg issue AND being circular. (Note that the difference between recursion and circularity is subtle, but immensely significant all the same.)

    So, the question isn't whether "an act violates an individual's life, liberty, and property", it's whether an act infringes upon another's ability to act with equivalent freedom.

    I know it's just a flow chart, but still.

    By the way, I was playing Assassins Creed 4, and the main character totally nailed my definition of right. While my definition is ultimately Jeffersonian in inspiration, as far as I am aware I'm the first to insist on the definition being properly recursive (possibly due to recursion being an under-appreciated technique in the era before computer science). I may be wrong on that point, however, because the recursive nature of rights and freedom is exactly what the writers of the game had their character express so perfectly. Either somebody has expressed it as I do and I'm unaware, or such a definition naturally appeals to programmers etc.
    First - I just wanted to point out that if there actually was a crime against a community ("society") each individual member of that community would also independently be a victim. I think that what the flowchart is saying is simply that if you cannot find a real, specific person who has suffered real damage for which they should be able to claim compensation, then there is no crime. When a crime is committed against a community, each individual victim could theoretically file or not file charge. So, basically, it can be thought of as a crime against multiple individual people at one time, but still not a crime against "society" as in an unenumerated group of faceless objects. I don't think it means if the supposed victim can be defined as "society" there is no crime, I think it means if the supposed victim can only be defined as "society" (as opposed to enumerating real people as victims) there is not crime.

    Second - I am interested in the definition from the game you're talking about. Is there a transcript somewhere that I could read?
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-13-2014 at 11:12 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I agree Marshaul there is a bit of simplification going on.

    In the past though under common law, homeowners or a section of society could make a case in court that their rights were being trampled upon. Maybe the chart should have changed "society" to state, as in the State charges you with going 10 over.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I think it should stay as "society"

    "Society" was put into quotations on the flowchart on purpose. They're saying "society" as in faceless, unenumerated victims. Such as when you go 10 over. The speed limit is for the benefit of "society." I was written a ticket for going 9mph over. There wasn't another human being within eyesight of me. There was no victim, but the officer would have surely agreed that "society" was the victim in my case. My going 9mph over (<-supposedly) was a danger to that society. But where was this supposed "society"? Nowhere to be found. They were faceless.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-13-2014 at 11:17 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    First - I just wanted to point out that if there actually was a crime against a community ("society") each individual member of that community would also independently be a victim. I think that what the flowchart is saying is simply that if you cannot find a real, specific person who has suffered real damage for which they should be able to claim compensation, then there is no crime. When a crime is committed against a community, each individual victim could theoretically file or not file charge. So, basically, it can be thought of as a crime against multiple individual people at one time, but still not a crime against "society" as in an unenumerated group of faceless objects. I don't think it means if the supposed victim can be defined as "society" there is no crime, I think it means if the supposed victim can only be defined as "society" (as opposed to enumerating real people as victims) there is not crime.
    I'm certain you're correct.

    Second - I am interested in the definition from the game you're talking about. Is there a transcript somewhere that I could read?
    I was just thinking that. Dollars to donuts nobody else noticed either, so I think I'll play through the plot again so I can transcribe it.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-13-2014 at 11:21 AM.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I agree Marshaul there is a bit of simplification going on.

    In the past though under common law, homeowners or a section of society could make a case in court that their rights were being trampled upon. Maybe the chart should have changed "society" to state, as in the State charges you with going 10 over.
    That I can agree with. The "state" has no rights and is incapable of being a victim.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I think it should stay as "society"

    "Society" was put into quotations on the flowchart on purpose. They're saying "society" as in faceless, unenumerated victims. Such as when you go 10 over. The speed limit is for the benefit of "society." I was written a ticket for going 9mph over. There wasn't another human being within eyesight of me. There was no victim, but the officer would have surely agreed that "society" was the victim in my case. My going 9mph over (<-supposedly) was a danger to that society. But where was this supposed "society"? Nowhere to be found. They were faceless.
    Good point but only those of us who don't conflate society with the state would understand that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good point but only those of us who don't conflate society with the state would understand that.
    Yes, that is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That I can agree with. The "state" has no rights and is incapable of being a victim.
    Me 3
    Advocate freedom please

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I just came across Herbert Spencer's Law of equal liberty. I hadn't encountered it before, but his definition is essentially identical to mine. Cool.
    Last edited by marshaul; 04-14-2014 at 07:13 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I just came across Herbert Spencer's Law of equal liberty. I hadn't encountered it before, but his definition is essentially identical to mine. Cool.
    Nice find. I pretty much think along the same lines as that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •