If someone commits the perfect crime. Do they deserve to get away with it?

that would not be a perfect crime

a perfect crime is where you get away with it and no one even knows it happened

 

Our governments commit the perfect crimeS daily. Should they be allowed to get away with it? Well, they do. Because we allow them to.

Rules for thee and not for me.

 

Can you be a little more specific. Your post is so vague as to become meaningless. I might agree with you if I knew what you were referring to.

 

There's no such thing as a "perfect" crime. There's just crime that are discovered and solved/not solved. Cases that aren't solved currently can still be solved even decades later.

 

Unlawful taxing and financial systems, the illicit dealings they do behind closed doors that anyone else would be hung drawn and quartered over. If I need to be even more specific then that means many people live in a world of fantasy where nothing like this mentioned goes on.

 

Ok, you somehow don't want to list anything specific. I bet I'd agree with you if you did. You can't walk into a court of law alledging someone is a thief without listing what was stolen. You can't alledge someone is a murderer in a court of law without naming the victim. This forum is very similar. This forum is the court of public opinion and has the same requirements or your post is simply not credible.

 

governments advertise, governments interfere in labour disputes, and governments give away control of important infrastructure to the private sector. Industries like utilities, defence, policing, health care, road clearing, education and the legal system are best kept in the control of the people, rather than relinquished to companies that have a profit mandate, governments confer favours upon rich lobbyists, governments forget whom they serve, governments moralize over who “deserves” what, governments waste money on politicking, governments control the flow of information.

Bank Crisis & Inflation: The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind

 

As far as your example goes, no one deserves to "get away with" rape. I think this should be self-evident, and I see I am not the first to point it out. Secondly, as you describe it-- since in your example, the victims can identify you-- it is not only an imperfect crime, but a one which might lead to the conviction of the theoretical culprit, even without hard evidence. Obviously, the "perfect rape," criminologically speaking, would leave no witness, so would probably end in the death of the victim.

But to answer the question, as generically expressed, in the thread title: it would depend upon the crime. It is an undeniable fact, that legal justice, does not always prevail. There are certainly situations in which, if one's crime is directed toward someone who had gotten away with a crime against that person, I could consider the "payback" to be commensurate, and so fair, and therefore just, should the person get away with it.

For simplicity's sake, let's take the example of your knowing someone stole some unique, or unmistakably identifiable object from you, but can't prove it, so cannot get much help from the police. If you were to "steal" your own object back, how could anyone say that you would not deserve to get away with it?

IOW, this basic concept presents the opportunity for a variety of interesting, contrasting opinions, but requires specific examples; there is no universally applicable answer, fitting all possibilities, within this general framework. If, however, your rape example had been meant to be the test case, of course there is no reason to believe that merely not being caught/convicted, might entitle a person to escape punishment for whatever criminal act they had perpetrated. What would even be your justifying argument? Rewarding "quality work?"

 

Ok, you simply won't name an incident, a name, a date, a place... so I give up. I'd probably agree with you if you could. But... what the hey... have a nice day... anyway.

 

Not considering one's sex, is an utterly separate thing, from not considering whether something is a sexual crime. Obviously, you have never been raped, and ostensibly lack basic empathy, but I can understand why being sexually violated, would make worse any battery. Perhaps you feel no emotion when you have sex. For most, the act is very personal & intimate. To have it associated with violence against oneself, is very likely to leave psychological damage, long after any physical scars have healed.

It seems a disingenuous authority, you suggest, whose words should be taken out of context, in the case of rape, since I strongly doubt that you are deferential towards the opinions of "radical feminists," on other matters. I am not even sure what you had in mind, by implying that the crime of "rape," does take one's sex "into consideration." Do you think only women can be raped? Clearly, you are unaware of the horror stories of some men's prisons. Do you think only men can be rapists? I do not think, legally, it makes any significant difference, whether one penetrates another, with their own penis, or with a strap-on dildo. IOW, your post seemed pointless, except as a signal of your personal issues, some of which involve feminism.

 

Easy to say, when your consideration of the question is purely academic. Let's try to personalize it. A person who you know, breaks into your house, rapes you and your family, then kills them all, but leaves you alive. You tell police who did it, but he denies it, and has left no trace of evidence. Maybe he has even arranged it to appear he has an alibi. Still, you know it was him. If police can never make a case against him, is your attitude, then, going to be that he "committed no crime?" Color me extremely skeptical, of that.

 

Why not? Democrat politicians have been getting away with it for decades.

Just look at all the insider trading in Congress

 

SCAMDEMIC comes close.

 

Law school 101.... No police officer sees it and no one reports it no crime has occurred.

Also some things that cops have shared with me talking to me at my job at the store at night

... If I follow you long enough I will find something to pull you over for

.... It's perfectly legal for me to lie to you and you to lie to me as long as you are not signing a sworn police affidavit.... That's perjury.

And my thoughts.... It is up to you to know your own rights, to the degree that you do not know your rights...? You effectively do not have those rights.

Never depend on a cop to give you accurate legal information because that is not part of their job description.

If a cop pulls you over the first thing he asked you is do you know why I pulled you over?

The correct answer is always no ma'am or no sir... Because if you're trying to contest it in a court of law... Good luck if you just admitted it to a cop.

Or if you want to go to the smart-ass route which I don't recommend ( you are never going to pissing match with a cop)... You could always just say, " well you are the one that pulled me over so why don't you tell me"?

The proper place to contest a cop is in a court of law not on the side of the road.

 

Crime is a legal term. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury in a court of law, then there was no crime.

That DOES NOT mean they get away with it. It just means they didn't commit a crime and so there's nothing that can officially be done about it.

 

That was not the OP's question. It was, does that "criminal" deserve to get away with their crimes. What makes your confusion about Turin's question, particularly quizzical, is your own statement, "That does not mean they get away with it." So you are saying that they deserve to get away with it, but they really don't get away with it? In what way, does the unarrested perpetrator of some crime, still not "get away with it?"

 

I'll just refer back to the first sentence in my first comment: "'Deserve' isn't really the best word..."

 

@Turin

Here are some other, specific examples, of when I would say a person deserved to get away with his crime. Let's say you live in a mostly residential area, but near a business, with many employees which leads the town to change a 4-way stop to a traffic light, to accommodate the heavier traffic when people are coming into, and when they are leaving, work (since so many people suck at being able to keep track of whose turn it is to go, in a 4-way intersection). You are leaving home at 9 PM and the light at the corner, even though there is zero traffic from the business, has yet to go to a blinking yellow state. So there is not a car anywhere in sight, but the light is red. If you run it, and don't get caught, do you deserve to get away with it: absolutely (IMO). Now, had there been a police car, sitting in the shadows, and so which had pulled you over, would you deserve that ticket? Again, yes, because you obviously had not looked carefully enough, making sure it was safe to go, if you did not spot the cop car.

Now, if you run the light and hit a jogger, say, but then panic and take off: even if you are never caught, you do not "deserve" to have been able to run down that person, and get away with it, scot free. So it falls somewhat under the "no harm, no foul," rule; though modified with the idea that if you are seen by police, whom you fail to notice, you are still guilty of negligence which potentially could lead to harm, were you to continue that practice. We could apply a similar idea, to the crime of "speeding."



A second example, is when a law is unjust, such as the laws against smoking pot, IMO. How many people had bought, possessed, and smoked marijuana, many times, when it was illegal in all states, & just a misdemeanor in none? Even if it still technically is a federal crime, it is de facto legal, in a growing list of states. If persons used it, without getting busted, God bless 'em-- they deserve to have "gotten away" with that, as far as I am concerned.

 

In other words: no answer to the OP's question, other than a recitation of how things work (or at least are supposed to work) in a court of law, which all of us, including Turin, already understand?

And no response to my question, as to what you had meant by "that DOES NOT mean they get away with it?"

 

The REAL question is : why on earth would you even be THINKING such thoughts??

 

Is it that you're too lazy to look for it yourself, there's plenty of it out there globally.
Here is but one example. Have yourself a good day!

From a cop on the beat to Millionaire's Row: Defence Minister Peter Dutton's surprising wealth - including his $4.5M property empire

He is currently the opposition leader for Australia.

 

I don't do YOUR HOMEWORK. When YOU make vague accusations... its up to YOU to provide specific facts.
So you are jealous of successful people? Just because someone is successful and has wealth does not indicate they did anything wrong.
Oh, and by the way... I couldn't care less about what does or does not happen in Australia.

 

Vigilanteism is a crime. However if it can't be proven in a court of law, then no crime occurred.

 

For the last time: you are limiting your use of the word "crime," to only its legal sense. If I can rephrase the OP's basic question-- since Turin has been remiss, in clarifying his intended meaning-- I think it asks, if one commits some offense, in such a way so that they escape legal prosecution for it, is that fair? Does the perpetrator deserve to not be punished, because of his conscientious attention to detail, or would this represent a failure, a shortcoming, of our legal system?

 

@modernpaladin

Another way to phrase this-- though again, it is unclear if Turin had meant it this way-- would be, do all those accused criminals, who get off in court, deserve to walk; do all those who never get charged for their crimes, deserve to escape any punishment? That bolded word, is the one on which I most focus, though another concept that could be questioned, would be punishment, or in the words of the OP, its absence, in the cases of those who "get away with," their illegal acts.

I think most would assume this refers to legal consequences, primarily involving our penal system. You, however, began your first contribution to this thread, centered on that concept, by saying, "that DOES NOT mean they get away with it," though retreated from that statement, when I asked what you had meant by it.

The troubling thing about the OP question, to my mind, is its seeming to disregard the effects one's actions, have upon others. In my reading, escaping prosecution-- because of not just incompetence by police, or random luck, but due to one's performing one's "crime" in such a "perfect" way-- is a kind of exoneration of that individual, something he has earned, and which is well deserved. As @kazenatsu rightly noted, from the start, this rings of a sociopathic philosophy, in which any individual is only concerned with how things affect themself ("might makes right," as Kaz had put it, along with a reference to Nietzsche).

So let me progress this idea out of the strictly legal realm, to see if that changes your perspective, by considering the idea of sexual infidelity. If you cheat on your spouse or significant other, but don't get caught, does that justify your act? Does it mean, IOW, that you owe no amends, for you had done nothing wrong?