Define crime

by Phoenix One UK Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:21 am

There is the law and there is a courts interpretation of the law where the two are not necessarily the same thing. There is also justice and law, and not only are the two not the same thing, they often conflict.

Note the above equally applies to civil and criminal law, and also note that it was not that long ago when a number of Lords were exposed as influencing laws to benefit certain companies, a practiced greatly magnified in EU Parliament.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:09 am

Bring back Trial by Ordeal. Works every time.

by Phoenix One UK Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:47 am

Would that be the same as deal or no deal OW?

Changing the subject, I believe the forum title could be changed to "Law and Order debates", and maybe even add another on freedom and privacy, which are included within another site.

It is important to realise that not all legal actions are criminal, most are civil. We then have to realise that people do have rights, and civil rights in the UK existed long before the Human Rights Act 1998 came to be.

The subject of law is of itself so complex you will find solicitors actually specialise within particular fields.

The current thread leaves no scope to explore anything other than Crime and Punishment, which narrows the scope of debate.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, and I had only been registered here a day.

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:35 pm

"Define crime", you asked, not law and its interpretation.

Crime is breaking the law. End of discussion?

Rather than "change the subject" of the thread in only its third message, if you have any suggestions for, or criticisms of, the way this forum is organised, please put them in a personal message to either me or one of the Moderators. Thank you.

by astra Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:39 pm

define crime

er how about

Doing to a person that which you would not have them do to you to your cost, discomfort and pleasure of life.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:53 pm

Any such discussion might profitably begin with a definition of what we call "Free Will", before moving on to deal with the results, such as criminal behaviour and the Law, caused by that attribute.

by astra Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:22 pm

OK OW (?)

I am a hutoo and am taking my kalashnikov to blast the rollocks off of some tootsies (excuse spelling, but you know I am thinking of central Africa)

It's my free will - SO?

Or some of the machinations I would place on the Campbell clan if I were a so minded Mc Donald. (A hatred that persists even some 310 years later!!)

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:28 pm

The veneer of civilisation can so quickly be peeled off.

by astra Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:35 pm

amazing what lies under a peaceful, yet festering crust!

by astra Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:12 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15853088

A convicted teenage burglar who was forced to write a letter of apology to a family whose home he targeted has abused his victims in writing.

West Yorkshire Police said the thief, who cannot be named, wrote the letter describing the family as "stupid" and blamed them for the burglary.

when I heard this on the gnooze, I thort Bring back the Birch the CAT, kissing the gunner's daughter.

I have had time to think about it!

and STILL think the same!

Is it me??

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:31 pm

Very reliable news emerging from places such as Libya reveals that treatment of prisoners can be distinctly mediaeval.

It shouldn't be impossible for British Justice to devise an effective middle path between writing letters and having your brains dashed out against the wall.

by astra Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:35 pm

AH! So, will talking to the little scrote er Gentleman (!) over cream tea and scones change his attitude?

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:56 pm

If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow.
John Wayne

by astra Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:30 pm

if only twere so simple! Crying or Very sad

by Stox 16 Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:43 am

Phoenix One UK wrote:Would that be the same as deal or no deal OW?

Changing the subject, I believe the forum title could be changed to "Law and Order debates", and maybe even add another on freedom and privacy, which are included within another site.

It is important to realise that not all legal actions are criminal, most are civil. We then have to realise that people do have rights, and civil rights in the UK existed long before the Human Rights Act 1998 came to be.

The subject of law is of itself so complex you will find solicitors actually specialise within particular fields.

The current thread leaves no scope to explore anything other than Crime and Punishment, which narrows the scope of debate.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, and I had only been registered here a day.

but then you have such a small mind anyway.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:37 am

On Tuesday 8 November 2011 Phoenix One UK wrote:
There is the law and there is a courts interpretation of the law where the two are not necessarily the same thing. There is also justice…

What you term “court interpretation” is in fact the core of UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and US law. It’s called common law, based upon the concepts of justice and reasonableness, and the underlying foundation upon which statute laws in the above referenced countries are based.

Take, for instance, a document with which I’m familiar, the United States Constitution. Please view this…

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Amendment 4, United States Constitution).

… and note the reference to reasonableness, i.e., “unreasonable”, a concept straight from common law.

View the following familiar portion of the United States Constitution…

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Amendment 8, United States Constitution).

… and note that “excessive” and “cruel and unusual” both rely upon reasonableness and justice for meaningful application, concepts straight from common law.

On Tuesday 8 November 2011 Phoenix One UK wrote:
There is also justice and law, and not only are the two not the same thing, they often conflict.

Thus, the necessity for government under God (“under God” is Abraham Lincoln’s terminology, echoed in the Pledge of Allegiance), as exposited in the operative phrase of the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable] rights [unto all men], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Note first that “governments” is plural, denying in its grammatical construction the erroneous contention that this portion of the Declaration of Independence is directed solely toward the government of the United States. Note also that democracy, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, is the means of achieving the goal, “to secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable] rights [unto all men]”, rather than the goal itself.

Common law, seeking as it does justice through reasonableness, is inherently “under God”, the Creator who has endowed all men (gender inclusive) with unalienable rights, whatever else you might or might no understand him to be.

by True Blue Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:14 pm

Define crime?

That which is injurious to property.

by Guest Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:32 pm

True Blue wrote:
Define crime?

That which is injurious to property.

That definition excludes torure, assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder.

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:37 pm

Crime is any action which causes offence to a Tory supporter, but which if done by that group is an entirely justifiable response to a pressing need... Smile

by Guest Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:43 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:
Crime is any action... which if done by that group is an entirely justifiable response to a pressing need...

So that grooup can murder if there's a pressing need?

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:53 pm

Extract from the Pease Pottage Gazette Crime Reports :

Cedric Snobbe : " There I was, Your Honour, innocently attending the Boxing Day Hunt ,when the deceased Hunt Saboteur suddenly ran at me and deliberately hit his head about thirty times on this large walking stick I was carrying..."

" You poor fellow, Cedric...er...Mr Snobbe, Case dismissed and see you at the Club later..." Very Happy

by astra Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:59 pm

So that grooup can murder if there's a pressing need?

Rob, believe me, Clive Cussler, John Grisham and Wilbur Smith would each be quite exhausted to come up with some of the machinations of the "Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain!

When it comes to the Labour Party, just mention Dr David Kelly (RIP)

by Guest Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:19 pm

Astra,

Pulled him up on wiki and one other source. Wow.

by Phoenix One UK Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:37 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
On Tuesday 8 November 2011 Phoenix One UK wrote:
There is the law and there is a courts interpretation of the law where the two are not necessarily the same thing. There is also justice…

What you term “court interpretation” is in fact the core of UK, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, and US law. It’s called common law, based upon the concepts of justice and reasonableness, and the underlying foundation upon which statute laws in the above referenced countries are based.

Take, for instance, a document with which I’m familiar, the United States Constitution. Please view this…

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Amendment 4, United States Constitution).

… and note the reference to reasonableness, i.e., “unreasonable”, a concept straight from common law.

View the following familiar portion of the United States Constitution…

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Amendment 8, United States Constitution).

… and note that “excessive” and “cruel and unusual” both rely upon reasonableness and justice for meaningful application, concepts straight from common law.

On Tuesday 8 November 2011 Phoenix One UK wrote:
There is also justice and law, and not only are the two not the same thing, they often conflict.

Thus, the necessity for government under God (“under God” is Abraham Lincoln’s terminology, echoed in the Pledge of Allegiance), as exposited in the operative phrase of the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable] rights [unto all men], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Note first that “governments” is plural, denying in its grammatical construction the erroneous contention that this portion of the Declaration of Independence is directed solely toward the government of the United States. Note also that democracy, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, is the means of achieving the goal, “to secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable] rights [unto all men]”, rather than the goal itself.

Common law, seeking as it does justice through reasonableness, is inherently “under God”, the Creator who has endowed all men (gender inclusive) with unalienable rights, whatever else you might or might no understand him to be.

What a sad state of affairs this site is in.

Hi Stox 16, and why am I not surprised to see your name here. For those who do not know, why not continue what you were doing within the UK Debating Forum. They would just love your pics of robots for me, the robot. I expect you will return to haunt me after reading this post.

Define crime? A simple question but few if any appear to understand the question. You even failed to consider that judges and law enforcers at times may themselves be criminals within the definition of the word. Hence, there is the law and courts interpretation of the law, and there is the law and justice, and not only are the two not the same thing, they often conflict. I even showed the past Prime Minister a Political Terrorist within the definition of terrorism Act.

So, where is everyone? Well, you know where to find me.

Often Wrong, you are one of the few here I missed. Take care.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:32 pm

I missed you too, Phoenix - but my aim is improving.

by True Blue Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:50 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
Define crime?

That which is injurious to property.

That definition excludes torure, assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder.

When did your body stop being your property?

Once upon a time, a wife's body and mind belonged to her husband... so the idea of the body being property is not new.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:27 pm

On the assumption that everything on Earth belongs in equal proportion to the inhabitants of Earth,

Property is theft

by astra Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:28 pm

SOD IT!!

Effin' BREATHING is a crime!

by AwfulTruth Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:35 pm

Tesco rips people off: that's what I call a crime! cat

by Guest Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:16 am

True Blue wrote:
Define crime?

That which is injurious to property.

RockOnBrother wrote:
That definition excludes torure, assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder.

True Blue wrote:
When did your body stop being your property?

Once upon a time, a wife's body and mind belonged to her husband... so the idea of the body being property is not new.

How can one equate one’s personal property with one’s body?

If a criminal vandalizes one’s personal property, that’s a crime against property. If a criminal vandalizes one’s body, that’s assault with intent to cause bodily harm.

If a criminal steals one’s personal property, that’s a crime against property. If a criminal steals one’s body, that’s kidnapping.

If a criminal destroys one’s personal property, that’s a crime against property. If a criminal destroys one’s body, that’s manslaughter or murder.

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:00 am

Define Crime?

That which society has defined as criminal.

by Sponsored content

Define crime

Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

With Pleasure

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime

Re: Define crime