crime and punishment

Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal. ~ Friedrich Engels

at first sight you might agree. it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. you have that bad state that wants to do some good and makes bad. however at a close look it seems different.

primarily the word crime is misused in this statement. it works with a generally accepted concept of crime and goes on. after that he says the state is more criminal than the crime it wants to curbe. and with that it uses a second time a generally accepted concept of crime to accuse the state to violate in order to fight the first concept.

however that´s the point where we disagree. the concept of law and crime. crime as a behavior opposing a behavior statet in a script defined as law. or better behavior described in a script as violation of law or as not accepted behavior. punishment given for behavior described in law or behavior opposed described in law. both ways acceptable for our concept.

our point starts with the description of law. history of law shows a permanent change of accepted behavior and punished bavior.

even in time we contradict the concept of law. what is lawful in this country is unlawful in that country.

we see that that concept above stated by engels can´t stand a trial of critical overview.

if we turn to non written law, the codex generally accepted by humans in time as acceptable and unacceptable we come to the same conclusion.

who defines written law and who defines unwritten law. that is a very complex issue. generally law is given by a parliament a tribal leader a religious leader or a similar council be it elected or not however stated and undisputed or marginally disputed but generally holding the power and rule of the state or similar organisation. they write down a law or similar statements oral or formal in a written codex however they define law in our description above.

so if the state writes the law the statement “Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal.” looses it´s intention. since law is something by description and not by itself a behavior can´t be called criminal. this statement based on the concept of immanuel kant: categorical imperativ. he takes morality and ethics as a undisputed concept a priori before every experience. concept questioned by nietzsche and will not be further disputed in this script. i refer to that author to question the categorical imperativ concept. since law and morality is a posteriori we can take the behavior of state curbing crime as more criminal only in a concept of written down law that is violated by organisations of state during curbing crime.

can a law be criminal that is our next point. a law can only oppose a already written law. in that statement it will become unlawful. depending on the existing legal codex. most constitutions have a law preventing opposing of a new law an already existing. mostly they have constituitonal courts covering these events where these laws can questioned and disabled without a new parlamentary hearing and sitting. unless in our case laws curbing crime don´t oppose already written down existing law a law can´t be criminal be it cruel as it might be or be it a limitation of private property or freedom as it might be. law becomes criminal only by violation of written down law.

Tags: behavior, codex, concept of law, council, crime, crime and punishment, criminal, criminal codex, definition of law, description of crime, engels, law, leader, power, punishment, state