Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download tolerable delinquencies
Document related concepts
Transcript
TOLERABLE DELINQUENCIES ALEC SCULLEY (4/26/16) Goals Move closer to knowing what it means for an entity to be a “Tolerable Delinquency” Considering Penumbral Crimes, Religious laws, Hidden Laws Discover the make up of a “Tolerable Delinquency” Offer questions about the importance of “Tolerable Delinquencies” First, what isn’t meant by “delinquency” In the way that it is used herein is not strictly: “illegal, deviant, or antisocial actions on the part of an adolescent” Many definitions from criminologists, sociologists, etc. have a strong component that delinquencies are performed by youths They may be, but not required for our use Here delinquency is more like “a neglect of one’s duty” The above notes are to keep in mind for the next few slides before the specifics What is a Tolerable Delinquency? In a general, they are only noticed by those prone to notice Police officers notice when someone drives slightly faster than the speed limit, but often do nothing about it You might notice your friend chews loudly, but don’t see to it that it stops You might not notice Others might not notice Merely examples, but at least give a sense of what it is to be a “Tolerable Delinquency” In both instances offences are minor Tolerated Delinquency to Tolerable Delinquency When we think about what it means for something to be tolerable, without getting too specific, we find that: It isn’t set in stone, but means something like “endurable, or acceptable” What’s tolerable shifts between contexts. North Korea v.s. United States Casual mean v.s. Formal meal So, in order to define we need to look at concrete examples, otherwise it is just guesswork There needs to be a place from which to extract a canonical version of a tolerable delinquency Tolerated Delinquencies THEN modify to find what it is for something to be a Tolerable Delinquency Two guiding definitions Definitions of tolerated delinquency under the following definitions: X is a violation iff X is an action that is not permitted under set of rules S X is a rule iff X is an explicit or unwritten regulation applicable to context C X is an agent iff X fulfills a relevant role in context C X is a punishment iff X is a consequence provided by rule R that can be carried out by agent A Punish def. to carry out punishment Preliminary Definition of Tolerated Delinquency X is a tolerated delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R that is recognized by an agent with the ability to punish the violator, but yet the agent doesn’t punish. For something to be tolerated, there must be at least two agents: the violator(s) and the tolerating agent(s) There needs to be a violation There needs to be a rule to violate These are the basics… But this surly cannot be the end definition Consider Penumbral Crimes Penumbral crimes are those crimes that are characterized by high noncompliance, low stigma, low level of sanction Something like driving 5 mph over the speed limit, or jaywalking Low-level of sanction These seem like tolerated delinquencies when they aren’t being punished. Often times it goes without punishment, but sometimes is punished Reconsider: X is a tolerated delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R that is recognized by an agent with an ability to punish the violator, but yet doesn’t. “an agent with an ability” Too vague A police officer has the ability to punish all criminals in a sense: He has the power to execute his duties (provided by the law) BUT criminals often get away with crimes, and it would be wrong to consider these escapes “tolerated” with the above conception of ability Adding Choice X is chosen iff X is the result of a deliberate selection by an agent whose selection comes to fruition New definition: X is a tolerated delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R that is recognized by an agent who chooses not to provide punishment. I think the “choice” here is important for the sake of non-vague definitions. At least concerning the portion that deals with demarcating the delinquencies that are tolerated versus those that are simply gotten away with. Now what was meant by “ability” is more clear. It implies two things: There was a choice to be made (tolerate or punish), and it toleration was decided Currently: X is a tolerated delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R by violator V that is recognized by an agent that chooses not to provide punishment. Consider: Tolerated Law Delinquencies (written rules), Tolerated Hidden Law Delinquencies (unwritten rules) These, I think, are the only categories Norms, crimes, contracts, religious doctrines, etc. Tolerated Law Delinquencies (written rules) X is a tolerated delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R by violator V that is recognized by an agent A that chooses not to provide punishment. Penumbral Crimes that are not enforced R= Law Agents= Law Enforcement, criminal Choice= enforce the law v.s. don’t Unenforced Contract Violations R= contract Agents= tolerating civil agent(s), violating civil agent(s) Choice= enforce v.s. don’t Tolerated Law Delinquencies (Written Rules) De Minimis (Latin for “minimal”) defense: generally, something is De Minimis when the consequences are determined to be so small as to be negligible “action does not create the evils or harms legislators can reasonably be assumed to have prohibited in that particular law” “Case is too trifling to warrant use of court’s resources” “When the judge does not view the defendant’s actions as warranting criminal condemnation” All of the above: The law was broken, BUT… Fits the template: R=Law Agents= judge, criminal Choice= De Minimis? Tolerated Law Delinquencies (written) Religious Delinquencies – failing to follow certain doctrines It is a bit unclear whether or not there is actually punishment for all of these delinquencies but consider that at least some delinquencies do have punishment which might not be delivered Leaving the church of scientology is grounds for being ostracized Self-punishment (guilt) R=doctrine Agents= self, self or self, other Choice= punishment? Hidden Law Delinquencies (Unwritten Rules) “Norms, conventions, implicit bargains that organize social expectations” R= norm Agents= person(s), person(s) Choice= social consequence? Tolerable Delinquencies X is a tolerated delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R by violating agent V that is recognized by an agent A who chooses not to provide punishment. What separates tolerated from tolerable? The basis of the choice? No uniform basis of choice for the tolerated delinquencies, since they seem to rely heavily on individual agents X is a tolerable delinquency iff X is a violation of rule R by violating agent V that is recognized by agent A that can reasonably go unpunished by A on the basis of a set of expectations in context C Importance? Law enforcement Allocation of resources Ethics Should there be delinquencies that are tolerable? If they are tolerable why should they be delinquencies in the first place? Penumbral crimes Is it moral for criminals to see themselves as law-abiding citizens? Political Theory What role do/can tolerable delinquencies play in society? Perhaps there is some optimal amount of tolerable delinquencies to grease the gears of society
