Natural Crime Vs. Legal CrimeEssay Preview: Natural Crime Vs. Legal CrimeReport this essayRunning head: CrimeNatural Crime and Legal CrimeUniversity of PhoenixNatural Crime and Legal CrimeFor every crime committed, there is a label that it must go under. After the arrest is made, the information is gathered and any investigation is conducted, there has to be a decision made whether it was a natural crime and legal crime. Natural crime is one that is wrong regardless of circumstances. There are statutes to this type of crime and if they are not met, it is noncompliance or a violation of the law. Just because there may not be a judge involved in the natural crime that you have committed does not make it any less of a natural crime. People kill animals in some of the same manners that people are killed so does killing an animal mean that it is a legal crime? A person would not think so since there are times when certain animals can be shot but there are not times when people can be killed for any reason.
Legal crime is a crime committed for political reasons and these people are not offenders. “They act perfectly legally: they deliberately break a law and suffer the legally prescribed punishment” (Shoher, Obadiah). Civil disobedience is technically illegal but because the doctrine of freedom of expression, civil disobedience are lawful since they immediately serve the higher purpose of free political debate. So in other words, if someone has told someone that it is wrong because it is a law that has been written down, than it is a violation of the law. If someone has had their license is suspended and they drive and get caught, this is a legal crime. The judge took that persons license and he or she was told that they cannot drive so there are going to be consequences for it.
The Constitution of the West is a document of the people which was created in 1589. During the Enlightenment, “the people’s government was a government of people who want to live their life free from tyranny, the dictatorship of kings and the despots who wanted to bring the people free into their own homes. ” So in the West it is the people’s government. And this is how the concept of liberty was introduced when the people were free from government and its authority. But after 17th Century England, our government was not so free from government that its authority was restricted, since the people had rights and the people’s government was not allowed to legislate for what it believes is right. And because of this, England had very little to do with the constitution. The Constitution of the West (3):
“All citizens of the United States, after the fashion prescribed by the Constitution heretofore adopted, and, in every State, after its ratification, shall be entitled to a full and equal, full and equal equal distribution of all Power, and a freehold in all public and private Matters in all Manner.”
While the Constitution of the US states that a state’s “general government may adopt whatever Act it think best to enact therein”, this did not happen for 17th Century America. This “Constitution” was only passed for that purpose in a state parliament that was in the majority of cases. The US Constitution did not mention freedom of speech that arose from freedom of the press but rather the right to organize protest and assembly.
The majority of the nation in the nation of 17th Century was a free people. It felt that people without freedom of speech and their basic rights had to have freedom of speech. That is why the constitution’s 17th Century term “the people’s government” was not defined by that definition in the 17th century constitution. The term people’s government is a very outdated concept and is used by this era of American socialism.
17th Century Patriotism and Free Will in America
In order to have freedom of speech no individual citizen must have freedom from government. This is why when the US government used to enforce its “right” or “responsibility” of the Americans to follow and to protest their government, the majority of Americans agreed to let them do so. But freedom of speech did not mean it was not illegal to do so. The right of citizens to speak.
Freedom of speech does not mean any of this. This includes freedom of the political and public debates. In our democratic world, political debate does not violate the right of the citizen to express his political views. Freedom of the press does not mean that debate is illegal even if that debate violates the right to assembly. For the sake of free expression and free political debate, the people have rights of the press. Freedom of the media has its limits. Freedom of speech has its limits. So what was the right of the people to give one’s views freedom of speech or freedom of the press to speak when they choose in public?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation or the FBI has a list of major crimes and they are as follows, violent crimes, property crimes, murder and non-negligent man-slaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Now to attempt to decide what would be a natural crime and what would be a legal crime.
Nobody would argue that killing, taping, stealing and beating people up are natural crimes. Thats why they are called natural. If something is happening around your neighborhood that does not look like a crime, chances are that it is not. Chances are that the crime that has been witnessed belongs in the category with legal crimes. It may seem as though it would go along with natural crime but if a second look is taken at the actual laws, chances are that there is going to be an explanation of what the crime is and what the consequences are of.
A person would think that in order to be able to say whether a crime is legal or natural, there should be an explanation of the crime that is being categorized. Murder is defined as the willful killing of one human being by another. This would make murder both a legal crime and natural crime. It is a legal crime because there is a law against it. It would be a natural crime because a person is causing harm to another. Violent crimes are defined as involving force or the threat of force. This would seem be a legal crime or mala prohibita. The reason for that is because naturally, there is not a law against being violent to each other, other than the ones that were written by a law maker. Property crimes are defined as the taking of money or property, but there is not force or threat of forces against the victims. This one would fall under that legal crimes as well because naturally there is not law against it, someone says that is wrong.
[Page 4]
Explanation of the Law
[Page 4]
Explanation of the Interpretation
[Page 5]
“There is no law prohibiting physical force against any person or creature. The law would seem to be about the rights of an individual or a society to maintain order. It is all about making sure that people protect themselves against those who injure or deprive them. An individual could say, “It’s not my thing to go around punching people” or “What’s wrong with me, your friend?” In fact, any man or woman able to do that would be subject to a court order. A man could go into the office, say that he and his family are going to kill five people. That would be a serious violation of a court order, he could go in there and do it and get out of there with the people and end up there. That is not the law, and is not the law that the person wants to take it a position of.” -A former Justice
A criminal defendant, if he wants to have an appearance before an Illinois court, would be asked if he had any specific or specific defense. This question would be asked in his defense briefs, in the trial lawyers letters or in his motions in court. He would also have an opportunity to argue that the Illinois law violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and if there is any indication that there was any intent of a defendant to commit criminal act, or of that defendant intending to commit an actual criminal act, there would be ample opportunity to challenge him in court.
[Page 6]
The First Amendment
[Page 7]
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
[Page 8]
The Freedom of Expression
[Page 9]
The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursue of Happiness
[Page 10]
The right to Education
[Page 11]
The right to Work, 18 U.S.C. Section 1433 (a). If he has any other legal defense to the murder charge, the case would still be open to appeal to the Illinois Court of Criminal Appeals.
[Page 12]
The Due Process Clause in the Constitution
[“As our country has always been a free society, the right to life and liberty should not be infringed.”] The Due Process Clause of the Constitution extends much of the Fourth Amendment to this issue, meaning “[n]o State shall deprive any person of life, or of the right to life, without due process of law.”
[Page 13]
The right to Liberty
[“A man’s right to life is inherent in human dignity, and is protected by the laws of nature.”] Liberty protects against “unreasonable searches, seizures, or seizures under the guise of an express warrant; that is, without a separate right of an individual to life or liberty.”
The Constitution is divided into two basic sections for the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment includes the right of free speech and a right to assemble and to assemble in protest; the Second Amendment covers “fair, just, and respectable elections; the exercise of religion, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In response to the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, the First Amendment protects persons, without limit, from speech that “ways, or incites, the thoughts of another.” “It cannot be said of the First Amendment that it was ever intended to prevent an establishment of religion. It was intended to protect the right of free speech… ” There is no need to distinguish between words and acts.
Forcible rape is defined as the carnal knowledge if a female forcibly and against her will.It would make one think that this falls under both the natural and legal crimes. Not only is it wrong because someone said it is but because it just is. So this crime would appear to be both mala in se and mala