crime and punishment

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY | ALL ENTRIES

Aristotle connects the governing of a good state to a lack of petty or minor crimes, among many other things. Confucius would say that a desperately poor man would "do anything." the string i am connecting to these two thoughts is that most crimes, particularly "petty" crimes like theft and drug charges, are done by people in desperate situations because of lack. they're not evil and they don't mean any harm. they're probably just trying to get by, like anybody else.

when we find out that someone has committed a crime, we judge them (individually) based on the type of crime they've committed; we judge them more if they've been caught; and we judge them more harshly if we don't understand their reasoning for the crime. i'm here to say that the crimes should be judged rather than the person committing them, in the case of "petty" instances.

a hungry person who steals bread hasn't committed a crime, except by the State's standards. capitalism would have people not eat while simultaneously throwing day-old food away which is otherwise completely edible. yet if an employee at some corporate coffee shop was caught eating a stale doughnut, they could be written up or fired. if you weren't going to sell it, what's the crime? stealing from the future garbage?

the same could be said of most drug charges. there are many places in the world where cannabis is illegal, and it's a fairly harmless drug. but if you're caught driving through the wrong town with a bag or a pipe, you could end up with fines or jail time. the crime? personal possession. who does this hurt?

who is harmed when a stale doughnut is eaten? when an eighth-ounce of weed is found in someone's pocket? the business who would have tossed it? the police who had to pat someone down? that's bullshit and we all know it.

i'm not even going to get into the various cities and States in the US where ridiculous laws are on the books (such as not eating ice cream on certain days) which aren't even enforced. but by mere mention, we begin to see how arbitrary those kinds of laws are when we consider them at face value.

why is it that in the US, an 18-year-old can sign up for college or the military, altering the course of their life through debt or threat of violence, and we don't consider those to be crimes of extortion or corruption? we don't hold institutions, of the capitalist or governmental kind, to any reasonable standards. we have accepted the liberal idea that because these institutions are intended to be self-regulating in some way (or are part of a system intended to regulate institutions) that they'll do what's best. we took power away from the FDA and now every few days a new food is being recalled for some sort of contamination. but we aren't calling that a crime?

in courtrooms, a person can be held in contempt of court for using curse words, because it is seen as "disruptive" to the decorum. "rules," "laws" and "crimes" are social constructs. there are absolutely things that should be punishable in some way, but a lot of what people consider crimes are offenses against the State or other institutions. when the State is a victim, is anyone really hurt? there are blasphemy laws in some places. who could be the arbiter of such a thing and who is to determine what is specifically blasphemous or offensive, in a court or in a protected church?

police get away with murder. ICE gets away with murder. religious men get away with sexual misconduct. politicians take bribes but we call it lobbying; lie but we call it misinforming; cheat for votes but we call it gerrymandering. none of them are held to the same standards as your average working-class or poor person. a CEO or a lawyer gets caught with some cocaine and he'll be able to make his way out of it with some money and friends; Joe Schmoe gets caught with the same bag and goes to prison on stacked charges.

if we're going to judge people by their crimes, and not judge the crimes by their sensibility, we're placing the blame on individuals instead of the systems that aim to dole out consequences. it's not a moral failing to commit a petty crime, it's either a cry for help or a failure to comply to some ridiculous standard. we can and should be doing better. but as long as people have money and power to swing like an axe, it's the poor who inevitably meet the chopping block.

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY | ALL ENTRIES