• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is there a Crime Flow Chart

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top