Criminals are wicked and should be punished.can you justify?
Answers:
Any person found guilty of any offence under the provisions of the criminal law gets punished for the offence they commit. To file a criminal complaint is different issue but to get the accused convicted is another as the prosecution can only be successful in getting the accused convicted if the prosecution can produce sufficient evidence against the accused & prove to the satisfaction of the trial court that apart from these evidence the circumstances of the case clearly show the indulgence of the accused in the complained offence beyond any reasonable doubt.
In every case? What if the law the criminal breaks is unjust, discriminatory, or wicked in and of itself? Does that make the criminal wicked if they break it? History is replete with unjust and destructive laws. Consider Archetypes such as Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, or Batman (or any other superhero.) Or historical figures such as Spartacus, Ghandi,our Founding Fathers, and Jesus. All of these people were criminals. Were they wicked? So I guess, no, I cannot justify your statement.
LOL at the second answer ... so, based on THAT logic, it's ok to break laws I personally feel are unjust. It just so happens that I don't feel it's right to continue paying taxes into a fraudulent system. By your explanation, since the tax laws are unfair and unjust, I should be exempt from paying. But, how fair would that be to the millions of others who DO follow the unjust tax laws? Please spare me your bleeding heart syndrome.
To answer the question: Criminals are not always wicked. Sometimes they are naive, sometimes they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse (as has been shown time and again throughout court history) to break the law. You break a law, you do your time.
That assumes that the only laws that exist are laws intended to prevent evil -- and that's not the case.
Many laws regulate conduct based solely on society comfort levels. Many regulate conduct solely to reduce risks, even if no harm is actually done.
And "wicked" implies an evil intent -- but many laws are punishable even if the person was not aware they were breaking the law, or even if they thought they were following the law.
So, no, I don't agree with the premise.
please wait and see the result of the sanjay case
Not all. Many civil matters get criminalised by being so declared by statutes. For example, cheque-bouncing (for want of sufficient funds in the bank account), parking vehicle at a no-parking zone, tax evasion, insider trading, violation of patent,copyright,trade-mark laws etc. , foreign exchange violations, cash transactions beyond prescribed limit, non-maintenance of records in public distribution system, non-maintenance of labour related records, tampering with meters installed by utilities etc.
These then are called offences and tried by criminal courts. The person committing infraction of the law is called a criminal.
I am of the view that jurisprudence shall undergo drastic changes in enlightened democracies, to excise totally all statutes declaring infraction of law as offences, which materially are of the nature, that is capable of being recompensed in terms of money, from the books and place them under civil laws.
Of course, corporal offences and offences relating to property, health, and ecology which are of greater import to the society shall remain in criminal laws with the general and special exceptions, exclusions and exemptions as warranted of sociological and psychological predelictions.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: