Who is Guilty of Crime Considering Biological Factors

Discussions

Civil disobedience is a peaceful form of protest where individuals intentionally violate a law or regulation that they consider unjust, as a means of drawing attention to the issue and pressuring the government to change the law or policy (Puner, 1968). One law that I feel would warrant civil disobedience is a law that criminalizes homelessness. This law would make it illegal for individuals to sleep or live in public spaces, such as parks or sidewalks, and would punish them with fines or imprisonment.

To civilly disobey this law, individuals could engage in acts of nonviolent resistance, such as setting up tents or makeshift shelters in public spaces, and refusing to leave when ordered to by law enforcement. They could also hold peaceful demonstrations or sit-ins to draw attention to the issue and raise public awareness.

The short-term consequences of civil disobedience may include arrest, fines, and imprisonment, as well as possible physical harm or injury from law enforcement. However, the long-term consequences could include changes in public opinion, increased media attention and pressure on lawmakers to change the law, and ultimately, the repeal or reform of the unjust law.

General deterrence refers to the idea that punishing individuals who break the law will deter others from doing so in the future (Apel & Nagin, 2011). Specific deterrence, on the other hand, refers to the idea that punishing individuals who break the law will deter them from doing so again in the future.

In the case of the law criminalizing homelessness, I do not believe that general or specific deterrence would be effective in reducing violations of the law. Instead, I believe that civil disobedience and other forms of protest and activism would be necessary to bring about meaningful change and justice for those affected by the unjust law.

References

Apel, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). General deterrence: A review of recent evidence. Crime and

public policy, 4, 411-436.

Puner, N. W. (1968). Civil disobedience: An analysis and rationale. NYUL Rev., 43, 651.

2Top of Form

There are ethical arguments both for and against punishing someone who commits a crime as a result of a biological condition. The argument for not punishing someone who commits a crime as a result of a biological condition is rooted in the idea of individual responsibility (Bandura, 1999). If a person's actions are determined by their biology, then they cannot be held fully responsible for those actions. Punishing someone in this situation would be seen as unjust because they did not have complete control over their behavior. Furthermore, punishing someone who committed a crime due to a biological condition may not be an effective deterrent. If the underlying cause of the behavior is not addressed, the individual may continue to engage in criminal behavior even after serving a sentence.

On the other hand, an ethical argument for punishing someone who commits a crime as a result of a biological condition is based on the idea of protecting society (Scott, 1993). If an individual's biology makes them more likely to engage in violent or criminal behavior, then society has a right to protect itself by punishing that individual. This argument is rooted in the utilitarian principle of maximizing the overall well-being of society. Plus, some may argue that individuals with biological conditions should be held accountable for their actions, even if they did not have complete control over their behavior. This argument is based on the idea of fairness and the belief that individuals should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, regardless of the underlying cause.