A nation of criminals
The United States is not the only country which is guilty of criminalizing behavior which makes others uncomfortable but which is not dangerous. A very clear example are laws which prevent women from driving Saudi Arabia has recently changed that law. Another example is homosexual behavior which was previously outlawed and criminalized in this county and is still criminalized in many other countries. Obviously, homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. It may make many people uncomfortable, but it is not dangerous or harmful. Violently forcing another person to do something such as engage in sexual relationship is, I believe 100% unacceptable. Does this necessarily mean that the person is likely to repeat the behavior? Not necessarily. When we term something as criminal we are not only suggesting that the person committed one act of violating the basic rights of another, but that they are likely to repeat that behavior or another similar act.
Yet, is the person likely to commit another violent act? Does not person need to be locked up depriving them and their family of basic rights and ability to take care of themselves and depriving the tax payer of a lot of money over x amount of years.
If one looks up the definition of criminal the most common agreement is that a crime is breaking the codified laws of the community. Laws are generally agreed upon to maintain social order or to prevent social harm. Obviously, there are many laws which are later decided have nothing to do with social harm. Many laws were made to protect the interest of a particular segment of the community. Laws protecting slavery and discrimination against women are two examples.
Some laws are intended to protect the beliefs of a particular religious group. Other laws clearly protect and/or enhance the interest of particular business interest. Some would even claim that the current system in the United States and some other countries of campaign financing have a significance influence on the decisions made by legislative bodies.
When a society decides that behavior which offends the moral or ethical sensibilities of those representing the God of their understanding and, thus, offends the sensibilities of the God of their understanding, the consequences are often individually and collectively far reaching. In many previous blogs, I have detailed the high cost of incarcerating individuals in the United States and the fact that high cost financially benefits particular segments of the community
Many laws criminalize a wide range of sexual behaviors. The list of behaviors which may not please us, but which are not repeatedly dangerous to others is long and includes the following
There are many behaviors which I find distasteful or, at best, not consistent with behavior which I think is healthy or respectful. Many tweeting behaviors fall into this category. For profit medications, the prohibitive cost of surgery and other medical procedures, deliberately using technology which is not nearly as fuel efficient as technology allows, use of private cars rather than public transit and a host of other behaviors are among those which I ethically find distasteful and even unjust. On the other hand, I am not convinced that criminalizing all these behaviors will, in the long run, create a more just, equitable, and loving society.
I am also not convinced that it would be cost effective.
Jimmy Pickett, LPC, AADC
Written July 23, 2018
The United States is not the only country which is guilty of criminalizing behavior which makes others uncomfortable but which is not dangerous. A very clear example are laws which prevent women from driving Saudi Arabia has recently changed that law. Another example is homosexual behavior which was previously outlawed and criminalized in this county and is still criminalized in many other countries. Obviously, homosexual behavior does not harm anyone. It may make many people uncomfortable, but it is not dangerous or harmful. Violently forcing another person to do something such as engage in sexual relationship is, I believe 100% unacceptable. Does this necessarily mean that the person is likely to repeat the behavior? Not necessarily. When we term something as criminal we are not only suggesting that the person committed one act of violating the basic rights of another, but that they are likely to repeat that behavior or another similar act.
Yet, is the person likely to commit another violent act? Does not person need to be locked up depriving them and their family of basic rights and ability to take care of themselves and depriving the tax payer of a lot of money over x amount of years.
If one looks up the definition of criminal the most common agreement is that a crime is breaking the codified laws of the community. Laws are generally agreed upon to maintain social order or to prevent social harm. Obviously, there are many laws which are later decided have nothing to do with social harm. Many laws were made to protect the interest of a particular segment of the community. Laws protecting slavery and discrimination against women are two examples.
Some laws are intended to protect the beliefs of a particular religious group. Other laws clearly protect and/or enhance the interest of particular business interest. Some would even claim that the current system in the United States and some other countries of campaign financing have a significance influence on the decisions made by legislative bodies.
When a society decides that behavior which offends the moral or ethical sensibilities of those representing the God of their understanding and, thus, offends the sensibilities of the God of their understanding, the consequences are often individually and collectively far reaching. In many previous blogs, I have detailed the high cost of incarcerating individuals in the United States and the fact that high cost financially benefits particular segments of the community
Many laws criminalize a wide range of sexual behaviors. The list of behaviors which may not please us, but which are not repeatedly dangerous to others is long and includes the following
- Someone who has sex with a slightly underage prostitute who may have lied about her/his age.
- An emotionally immature 19-year-old who has consenting sex with a 15-year-old (age, varies depending on state or country)
- Someone having child pornography on their computer among adult pornography when there is knowledge that such material can get be inadvertently or deliberately downloaded by someone the person does not know and who they have not authorized.
- Someone – even a person in authority – who has consensual sex with a 16 or 17-year-old and does not have a history of such behavior.
- A young person who learns that abusive use of alcohol is both acceptable and expected in college. When both parties are drunk thus impaired the ability to give consent is questionable at best. Such behavior needs to be addressed but should it be labeled criminal.
- Someone whose primary sexual attraction is towards prepubescent children including infants. Such a person may need treatment including monitoring of some sor,t but has not made a conscious choice to have an obsessive desire to be attracted to children who cannot protect themselves.
- Someone who exposes themselves. (Zip it up. No one cares.). This again may be indicative of some mental disorder.
There are many behaviors which I find distasteful or, at best, not consistent with behavior which I think is healthy or respectful. Many tweeting behaviors fall into this category. For profit medications, the prohibitive cost of surgery and other medical procedures, deliberately using technology which is not nearly as fuel efficient as technology allows, use of private cars rather than public transit and a host of other behaviors are among those which I ethically find distasteful and even unjust. On the other hand, I am not convinced that criminalizing all these behaviors will, in the long run, create a more just, equitable, and loving society.
I am also not convinced that it would be cost effective.
Jimmy Pickett, LPC, AADC
Written July 23, 2018
RSS Feed