Crimes of Omission

The best question raised by law school thus far: Why does common law permit people callously to permit harm to come to others, even when they could prevent or mitigate it at no significant risk to themselves? I understand the arguments about tough line-drawing problems and all that, but don't courts and juries exist to draw those difficult lines?

I've been omitting to post, but thank goodness that's not a crime. Y'all know I'm usually just, Talking Loud and Saying Nothing anyway. ;-)

Today's Crimlaw promises to be interesting as ever. We'll recognize 9-11-01 by discussing the proposition that America's brand of criminal justice is like terrorism in that both are instrumental violence, and that instrumental violence is almost always immoral. (By "instrumental" I mean the Kantian view that no human should ever be used as a means to an end.) Our professor argues that we categorically condemn the violence of terrorism because it is instrumental (terrorists kill innocents to make a political point, thereby using the innocents as means to an end), yet we actively support the violence of harsh criminal punishments, again, because we see such punishments as instrumental (we think imprisoning criminals or killing them makes us safer, therefore we're using those people as means to an end). This double-standard dilutes America's moral standing in its fight against terrorism; therefore, reform of the criminal justice system may, in the long run, reduce terrorism. (Ok, the prof doesn't go that far, but it's a logical extension of his argument.)

The argument doesn't get to the main point I'd like to discuss, namely that our "war on terrorism" is itself counterproductive, regardless of how our criminal justice system works. Still, it's something to sink your teeth into. Now I better get going to do just that.

Posted September 11, 2003 07:22 AM | law school