what are acceptable crimes??? (19)
teenameena: It's a violation of law to exceed the speed limit. Yet if you are speeding to the hospital so as to save the life of the person in the seat next to you. In that senero I would say yes. The crime of speeding would be acceptable.
Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?
Governments commit crimes around the world every day, and yet they do it with impunity.. Take Israel for example.. Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?
And then we have the likes of Maggie Thatcher, don't get me started on her..
------ This thread is Archived ------
Name_Taken_Two: Governments commit crimes around the world every day, and yet they do it with impunity.. Take Israel for example..United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 of 2016 states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
And then we have the likes of Maggie Thatcher, don't get me started on her..
Fixed And then we have the likes of Maggie Thatcher, don't get me started on her..
------ This thread is Archived ------
Name_Taken_Two: Governments commit crimes around the world every day, and yet they do it with impunity.. Take Israel for example.. Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
And then we have the likes of Maggie Thatcher, don't get me started on her..
what international law?And then we have the likes of Maggie Thatcher, don't get me started on her..
------ This thread is Archived ------
Name_Taken_Two: Fixed
Again they are not white enough to matterSame in Japan Muslims in a concentration camp not talked about I wonder why lol
Acceptable crimes: em does stabbing your kids dad count he's here everyday all of a sudden in my house lol only jokin' but day dreaming is allowed (not)
------ This thread is Archived ------
BordorFox: what international law?
I'm sure you could find out easy enough.. Here's a bit though..
"Israel operates a military policy of collective punishment called the ‘Dahiya doctrine’, after the area in Lebanon where it was first used by Israeli forces in 2006. Simply put, the doctrine sees massive force being used upon the civilian population in order to exert political pressure on enemy forces. Aside from being a classic definition of the word “terrorism”, Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines collective punishment as a war crime, stipulating that “No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited … Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited."
The first Israeli settlements were built in late 1967, immediately following the military occupation of the Palestinian territories. Today over half a million Jewish-Israelis live in such settlements. As Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that it is illegal for an occupying power to “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, all such settlements are thus war crimes. UN Security Council Resolution 446 declares settlements have “no legal validity”.
In 1980 Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem as Israel’s “complete and united” capital. UNSC Resolution 478 declares the annexation “a violation of international law” which is “null and void and must be rescinded.” UNSC Resolution 497 similarly states that Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in also illegal.
You are welcome
------ This thread is Archived ------
irish78eyes: Again they are not white enough to matter
Same in Japan Muslims in a concentration camp not talked about I wonder why lol
Acceptable crimes: em does stabbing your kids dad count he's here everyday all of a sudden in my house lol only jokin' but day dreaming is allowed (not)
Exactly, sure you and I have witnessed it.. Don't know about stabbing the dad though..Same in Japan Muslims in a concentration camp not talked about I wonder why lol
Acceptable crimes: em does stabbing your kids dad count he's here everyday all of a sudden in my house lol only jokin' but day dreaming is allowed (not)
------ This thread is Archived ------
teenameena: It's a violation of law to exceed the speed limit. Yet if you are speeding to the hospital so as to save the life of the person in the seat next to you. In that senero I would say yes. The crime of speeding would be acceptable.
Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?
Crimes are never acceptable ! This is a contradictio in terminis. A crime means evil, doing wrong not acceptable actions so it can never be accepted!! Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?
Unless...you live in the USA, land of total freedom . but also a country with the most conservative and restrictive regulations !!
In other words freedom , YES , as long as it fits the goals otherwise not !! This is what their democratic model stands for....Fake!! And believe it or not this isn't the only "democratic" country that acts this way!!
Religion and ideologies always limit the human freedom !! That's the curse of humanity!!
Homo sapiens so called civilized species...what a joke!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
irish78eyes: Again they are not white enough to matter
Same in Japan Muslims in a concentration camp not talked about I wonder why lol
Acceptable crimes: em does stabbing your kids dad count he's here everyday all of a sudden in my house lol only jokin' but day dreaming is allowed (not)
You of course mean China and its Moslems?Same in Japan Muslims in a concentration camp not talked about I wonder why lol
Acceptable crimes: em does stabbing your kids dad count he's here everyday all of a sudden in my house lol only jokin' but day dreaming is allowed (not)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Name_Taken_Two: I'm sure you could find out easy enough.. Here's a bit though..
"Israel operates a military policy of collective punishment called the ‘Dahiya doctrine’, after the area in Lebanon where it was first used by Israeli forces in 2006. Simply put, the doctrine sees massive force being used upon the civilian population in order to exert political pressure on enemy forces. Aside from being a classic definition of the word “terrorism”, Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines collective punishment as a war crime, stipulating that “No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited … Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited."
The first Israeli settlements were built in late 1967, immediately following the military occupation of the Palestinian territories. Today over half a million Jewish-Israelis live in such settlements. As Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that it is illegal for an occupying power to “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, all such settlements are thus war crimes. UN Security Council Resolution 446 declares settlements have “no legal validity”.
In 1980 Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem as Israel’s “complete and united” capital. UNSC Resolution 478 declares the annexation “a violation of international law” which is “null and void and must be rescinded.” UNSC Resolution 497 similarly states that Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in also illegal.
You are welcome
Well The military approach expressed in the Dahiye Doctrine deals with asymmetrical combat against an enemy that is not a regular army and is embedded within civilian population; its objective is to avoid a protracted guerilla war. So not so different to say marshal law, but with deadly force. States with so many civilian terrorist groups, it's needed i guess. Can it be abused? definitely. So if america had an uprising and the 2nd amendment was utilized, the American government wouldn't do similar? Hell the patriot act is not so un-similar, and Guantanamo bay for example, is not in america for a reason."Israel operates a military policy of collective punishment called the ‘Dahiya doctrine’, after the area in Lebanon where it was first used by Israeli forces in 2006. Simply put, the doctrine sees massive force being used upon the civilian population in order to exert political pressure on enemy forces. Aside from being a classic definition of the word “terrorism”, Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines collective punishment as a war crime, stipulating that “No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited … Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited."
The first Israeli settlements were built in late 1967, immediately following the military occupation of the Palestinian territories. Today over half a million Jewish-Israelis live in such settlements. As Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that it is illegal for an occupying power to “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, all such settlements are thus war crimes. UN Security Council Resolution 446 declares settlements have “no legal validity”.
In 1980 Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem as Israel’s “complete and united” capital. UNSC Resolution 478 declares the annexation “a violation of international law” which is “null and void and must be rescinded.” UNSC Resolution 497 similarly states that Israel’s annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights in also illegal.
You are welcome
But besides that, these countries have to agree to these "violations" to be bound by them.
International law is the term given to the rules which govern relations between states.
Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon them, and it is this fact which gives these rules the status of law. So, for example, where a state wishes to avoid a particular rule, it will not argue that international law does not exist, but merely that states have not agreed that such a rule is to be binding upon them, or that the rule does not apply to the particular circumstances.
Unlike national or domestic law, international law is not set down in any legislation approved by a parliament. Even multilateral treaties do not apply to all states, but only to those which have consented to be so bound, by signing and ratifying or acceding to them. As a result, the precise rules of international law are often more difficult to identify than national laws, and may be found in a variety of sources.
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice directs the Court to apply the following sources of law in deciding disputes:
"(a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by contesting states;
(b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
(c) the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations;
(d) … judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”
------ This thread is Archived ------
The law is a generalisation and in some areas of law a much cruder one than others. What's coming back with the internet is guilt by association and the criminality of being witness to a crime, which I reject on the basis that everyone is connected to everyone else online.
------ This thread is Archived ------
That's a great question Teenameena...
When I typed the autocorrect wrote grey instead of great.
And this is the main point in your question.
What is good and what is bad and what do the moral and ethics stand for in this mix. The law may not always be on the side of the the good but on the side of the right.
As someone said we as humans are not as civilized as we think.
We commit crimes that are beyond any acceptance. And yet we do accept them.
It's like slowly poisoning someone and the argument is you are not killing them right away, is there anything humane in it?
Are you less cruel or evil?
Do you deserve to be judged harsher or met with understanding?
We can find something right in the most unacceptable situation and be outraged by the least offensive one.
We are animals after all, thinking ones as well and this makes us the worse creatures of all.
When I typed the autocorrect wrote grey instead of great.
And this is the main point in your question.
What is good and what is bad and what do the moral and ethics stand for in this mix. The law may not always be on the side of the the good but on the side of the right.
As someone said we as humans are not as civilized as we think.
We commit crimes that are beyond any acceptance. And yet we do accept them.
It's like slowly poisoning someone and the argument is you are not killing them right away, is there anything humane in it?
Are you less cruel or evil?
Do you deserve to be judged harsher or met with understanding?
We can find something right in the most unacceptable situation and be outraged by the least offensive one.
We are animals after all, thinking ones as well and this makes us the worse creatures of all.
------ This thread is Archived ------
BordorFox: Well The military approach expressed in the Dahiye Doctrine deals with asymmetrical combat against an enemy that is not a regular army and is embedded within civilian population; its objective is to avoid a protracted guerilla war. So not so different to say marshal law, but with deadly force. States with so many civilian terrorist groups, it's needed i guess. Can it be abused? definitely. So if america had an uprising and the 2nd amendment was utilized, the American government wouldn't do similar? Hell the patriot act is not so un-similar, and Guantanamo bay for example, is not in america for a reason.
But besides that, these countries have to agree to these "violations" to be bound by them.
International law is the term given to the rules which govern relations between states.
Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon them, and it is this fact which gives these rules the status of law. So, for example, where a state wishes to avoid a particular rule, it will not argue that international law does not exist, but merely that states have not agreed that such a rule is to be binding upon them, or that the rule does not apply to the particular circumstances.
Unlike national or domestic law, international law is not set down in any legislation approved by a parliament. Even multilateral treaties do not apply to all states, but only to those which have consented to be so bound, by signing and ratifying or acceding to them. As a result, the precise rules of international law are often more difficult to identify than national laws, and may be found in a variety of sources.
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice directs the Court to apply the following sources of law in deciding disputes:
"(a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by contesting states;
(b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
(c) the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations;
(d) … judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”
Good lad, the breaking of articles in the Geneva convention are breaking international law.. And Israel have broken many, excuse my use of pictures, I find they explain things simpler..But besides that, these countries have to agree to these "violations" to be bound by them.
International law is the term given to the rules which govern relations between states.
Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon them, and it is this fact which gives these rules the status of law. So, for example, where a state wishes to avoid a particular rule, it will not argue that international law does not exist, but merely that states have not agreed that such a rule is to be binding upon them, or that the rule does not apply to the particular circumstances.
Unlike national or domestic law, international law is not set down in any legislation approved by a parliament. Even multilateral treaties do not apply to all states, but only to those which have consented to be so bound, by signing and ratifying or acceding to them. As a result, the precise rules of international law are often more difficult to identify than national laws, and may be found in a variety of sources.
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice directs the Court to apply the following sources of law in deciding disputes:
"(a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by contesting states;
(b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
(c) the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations;
(d) … judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”
"The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is a body of Public International Law, also known as the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts, whose purpose is to provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts."
------ This thread is Archived ------
But mostly I think the acceptability of a crime depends on your status in society. The law is a lot softer on google than it is on you and me even thought they're the great profiteer from this vast network of sewers. It's how big you are, how well liked you are, that makes the crime acceptable.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Some crimes are heinous, some are just daft, many are outdated....
As recently as 1986, it has been illegal to 'handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances' - which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, for example, it is illegal for the 'keeper of a public house to permit drunkenness on premises', yet any pub-goer could swear they see that particular law being broken by millions of people each week.
And since 1939, it has been against the law to carry a plank along a pavement.
As of 1839, it has also been against the law to beat or shake any carpet or rug in the street. You can shake your doormat, however, but only before 8am in the morning.
More recently but no less puzzling...
As of 2004, 'no person shall import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes'.
As recently as 1986, it has been illegal to 'handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances' - which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, for example, it is illegal for the 'keeper of a public house to permit drunkenness on premises', yet any pub-goer could swear they see that particular law being broken by millions of people each week.
And since 1939, it has been against the law to carry a plank along a pavement.
As of 1839, it has also been against the law to beat or shake any carpet or rug in the street. You can shake your doormat, however, but only before 8am in the morning.
More recently but no less puzzling...
As of 2004, 'no person shall import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes'.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bodleing2: Some crimes are heinous, some are just daft, many are outdated....
As recently as 1986, it has been illegal to 'handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances' - which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, for example, it is illegal for the 'keeper of a public house to permit drunkenness on premises', yet any pub-goer could swear they see that particular law being broken by millions of people each week.
And since 1939, it has been against the law to carry a plank along a pavement.
As of 1839, it has also been against the law to beat or shake any carpet or rug in the street. You can shake your doormat, however, but only before 8am in the morning.
More recently but no less puzzling...
As of 2004, 'no person shall import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes'.
As recently as 1986, it has been illegal to 'handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances' - which leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, for example, it is illegal for the 'keeper of a public house to permit drunkenness on premises', yet any pub-goer could swear they see that particular law being broken by millions of people each week.
And since 1939, it has been against the law to carry a plank along a pavement.
As of 1839, it has also been against the law to beat or shake any carpet or rug in the street. You can shake your doormat, however, but only before 8am in the morning.
More recently but no less puzzling...
As of 2004, 'no person shall import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes'.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Crazy laws that still exist..
It's illegal to pass wind in a public place after 6pm on Thursdays in Florida. ...
It's against the law to have a sleeping donkey in your bathtub after 7 pm in Arizona, USA. ...
It's illegal not to walk your dog at least three times a day in Turin, Italy.
It's illegal to pass wind in a public place after 6pm on Thursdays in Florida. ...
It's against the law to have a sleeping donkey in your bathtub after 7 pm in Arizona, USA. ...
It's illegal not to walk your dog at least three times a day in Turin, Italy.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Name_Taken_Two: Exactly, sure you and I have witnessed it.. Don't know about stabbing the dad though..
Yeah maybe not ------ This thread is Archived ------
teenameena: It's a violation of law to exceed the speed limit. Yet if you are speeding to the hospital so as to save the life of the person in the seat next to you. In that senero I would say yes. The crime of speeding would be acceptable.
Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?
It is against the laws here for emergency vehicles here to do anything which may harm others while responding to a request for urgent help even if they have appropriate flashing lights and sirens.Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
The weird and the random facts around the world
makeover
The Real Stormy Story
Why is this shameful?
Ladies
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
Have it both ways!
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
Unions support Democrats!
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
825 Views
18 Comments
in Advice
Created: May 2022
Last Viewed: Apr 19
Last Commented: May 2022
8 Likes
Last Liked: Apr 2023
17 DisAgrees
Last DisAgreed: Jul 2023
Related Forums
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- makeover
- The Real Stormy Story
- Why is this shameful?
- Ladies
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- Have it both ways!
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
- Unions support Democrats!
Some crimes are acceptable because some laws are morally wrong.
San Francisco will not...
arrest anyone who steals less than 900.00. The murder of unborn children is an acceptable crime according to Democrats.
perhaps no crimes would be acceptable,
but lets first understand
what are crimes
and why
it is done what are the best
solutions?