Humour, comics, tech, law, software, reviews, essays, articles and HOWTOs intermingled with random philosophy now and then
Filed under:
People and society by
Hari
Posted on Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 21:51 IST (last updated: Wed, Jul 16, 2008 @ 21:11 IST)
I felt that I had to express myself on this topic after I read somebody's post on an online forum which declared that any illegal action automatically had to be a crime. These types of discussions do come up a lot in online debates about software/music/movie piracy. It never fails to annoy me when novice, over-zealous 15-year old kids with loads of time, misplaced self-assurance, very little experience in the real world and a holier-than-thou attitude to boot suddenly become legal experts online. The sheer audacity of such assertions can only be the product of abject ignorance and worse, a lack of common sense. Even a layperson will realize without exercising much brain-power that many actions can be illegal without necessarily constituting a crime. Take for instance the issue of non-payment of rent by a tenant occupying a building or a house. Technically the action of occupying any premises without paying rent to the owner is illegal, but does it constitute a crime which can be punished under the criminal law? In many countries the distinction between civil law and criminal law is very clear and this kind of illegality would clearly be covered under civil law. The landlord has to sue the tenant personally to get his rightful dues. The maximum (in most cases) that the Landlord can hope for is an eviction order (and not imprisonment). The State does not prosecute the errant tenant in this case. The above case is just a simple, obvious example. There are many such instances of "illegal" actions which are not crimes. More practically, the distinction between illegality and crime can be a lot more complex.
That no man-made legal system is absolutely foolproof or crystal clear in every respect is apparent. Far from being clear many Laws actually make very little sense even to legal experts. That's why lawyers are paid so much money to interpret and argue points of law. But on the internet, where everybody has the opportunity to become an instant anonymous expert, it's so easy to make blanket statements about the Law and spread a lot of misinformation. In fact, this level of ignorance is the reason which big corporations tend to prey on small individuals/organizations. The fear of the Law is so great (and justifiably so) that individuals can easily become intimidated when threatened with lawsuits, even if the Law is on their side. Big companies can afford to hire lawyers full-time to take care of their legal troubles.
Even if ordinary people cannot fully understand the intricacies of the law or legal procedures, I believe it's always important to know the principle behind a Law. Knowledge empowers and a basic knowledge of the Law should actually be a full-time subject in schools. Educating young people about their rights and duties should be an important priority in any democratic country with a working legal system. If nothing else, it will at least protect a new generation from smart-alecs online who mouth off any nonsense about Law/legality and crime. 
7 comment(s)
Comment by MrCorey (visitor) on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 @ 00:18 IST #
Like: you can have as many passengers as you want in the back seat of a car. Just the driver and the other in the front though please. (This is in Bolivia.) (don't ask how I know this one.)
Not so in Australia, where you must have 1 passenger per seatbelt.
Comment by (visitor) on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 @ 06:23 IST #
TG, precisely my point as well. There's no such thing as a universal law. But going by these online legal experts, one would think that law is an unambiguous black-and-white concept which is universally acceptable.
That's why I feel it's important that legal education should target school children. It's important to know our legal rights in this day and age or we'd be taken for a ride.
Comment by hari (blog owner) on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 @ 09:07 IST #
A hypothetical question that I've pondered in my time, because I believe someday it won't be just hypothetical, is: Do people have the RIGHT to commit a crime?
If some scientist somewhere came up with, say, an implant that would make it impossible for a person to commit a crime, should that invention be put into practice?
Some people would say "Yes, it will stop crimes like theft and murder" while others will point out that civil disobedience has always been a powerful tool to stop bad laws being passed, or to get them revoked. There's also the age-old "Is it wrong for a starving man to steal food to stay alive?" debate.
I personally believe that adults old enough to be held culpable of breaking the law should be allowed to break it if they so choose, and accept the consequences they may suffer. Others might disagree..
Comment by Dominic (visitor) on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 @ 19:27 IST #
To me I believe that the question itself doesn't make much sense unless you have a specific crime in mind. "Crime" is a term that covers a huge range of activities and sometimes even depends on the cricumstances.
Comment by hari (blog owner) on Wed, Jun 11, 2008 @ 10:08 IST #
And you're right. Nothing is more annoying than people who think they know what they're talking about when they don't know the difference between apples and oranges.
Comment by RT Cunningham (visitor) on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 @ 19:31 IST #
Comment by hari (blog owner) on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 @ 19:34 IST #