There is one choice, 1 vote for Nathan Explosion's debate

vigilantism again

• crime for justice

  Let me Provide a situation. you have come to hear that a person it suspected of a major felony and it is beleived that evidance is inside their home however the police are having trouble convincing the courts to provided them with a search warrent.
  
  as I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, if a person such as yourself where to commit a crime for instance braking and enturing then allowed yourself to be caught(maybe even alerting the ploice yourself for good measure) this could provide the police with the ground to search the house you broke into.
  
  I imagine you could even claim you were looking for some item "that you thought they stole" they would be able to seach the grounds looking for that stolen item.
  
  as I understand the police can seize any evidance involving other cases on the grounds of probable cause.
  
  simply by commiting a crime you have given the police the ability to get evidance against a major criminal by them investigating your crime. of course you would have to go to jail, but I would gladdly pay a price like that (if it would work) to put a criminal like, someone pimping child sex slaves or murder ect.

  Voted for by Nathan Explosion.

  View 6 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    petethemeat
    January 18, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    You really think the police would have difficulty searching the house of a murder suspect or paedophile? The police can search a house with relative ease...
  • 
    Stepherz804
    January 18, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Just because you'd be ok with it still doesnt make it completely right and obviously if they cant get a search warrant then there isnt enough evidence as of yet.
  • 
    Nathan Explosion
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    yeah good point they probably wouldn't have a hard time with getting a warrent, but don't take my example so literaly, it is a hypothetical senario for the point of presenting a moral conflict. The question i'm trying to ask is, What makes something right or wrong. is something right or wrong because of how you do it or the final out come of what you have done?
    
    if you do something bad and something good comes of it is it a good thing that you have done or a bad thing?
    
    something is done in a way generaly considered ethical and it is for "bad" is it any less "bad" then something blatently "bad"?
    
    I'm sorry if i tend to be confusing, i don't mean to be.
  • 
    Stepherz804
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    This is beginning to remind me of a class I had once when we were discussing predestination. I had asked the teacher if someone killed someone because they killed someone else and they were getting away with it is that a bad thing. He couldnt answer the question. Tech. it is. Killing in itself is bad. yet they were killing to prevent the original killer from continuing to kill. Its a little messed up.
  • 
    Nathan Explosion
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    well if you have the power to prevent something bad from happening and you knowingly and willing neglect to prevent it isn't that almost if not just as bad as causeing that bad thing to happen. although capital punishment isn't quite the same thing it is the idea behind it "dead men don't kill people"
  • 
    Stepherz804
    January 19, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Theres preventing and then theres killing. You can prevent someone from doing something without killing them or seriously harming them anyway.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: