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

The OP said 'crime'. It sounds like you're talking more about 'sin' or something... in that context, we're all guilty of something, whether its something illegal that we didn't get caught for (like the rape scenario in OP) or whether its just something immoral/unethical like buying a new iPhone instead of helping the poor. I assume OP meant what OP said- 'crimes', mostly because otherwise the discussion devolves into the completely subjective realm of what is right and wrong.

If that's what the discussion is, then you're correct, I don't have anything meaningful to add, except perhaps that life is more enjoyable when its spent not trying to figure out what everyone else 'deserves'. Morality is subjective because we're all the heroes of our own story. It can be 'right' for one person to steal, for example, when they're feeding their starving kids and wrong for someone else to steal when they're just greedy. What they each deserve is not only subjective based on the perspective of the judger, but its also different on a case by case basis. Rape is a bit different in that its hard to imagine a scenario where it could be justified, but I'm sure one exists somewhere in the wild and diverse history of human interaction.

 

As suspected. LAME.

 

To be fair, I have heard some persons say, from the "poly" swinger community, and the gay community, that they "don't care" so long as they don't find out about it.

In which case some might point out that this really sounds like a "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it" scenario.

That could be an interesting separate philosophical debate. But one that doesn't really apply in this discussion, because the first post was talking about a crime which usually has a clear victim.

 

I know a ton of poly people. None of them act like that. This is the first time I've heard of any poly person acting like that. All of the ones I've met have been adamantly opposed to anything short of informed consent and openness with all of their partners. That's kind of the whole point. I'm not sure where you met these people.

 

You STILL have no facts... gees... at least you're consistent.

 

I gave you an example but as typical of those who live in limbo, dismiss anything. Regardless of location or of whom. The only one being consistent with not being able to identify what goes on near or far is yourself.

How about Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Jacinta Adren, and Emanuel Macron? (The last three are WEF Global Youth Leader graduates, but you knew that, hey?) These individuals are the personification of my post #57, as examples.

 

You still cannot list any specific actions they did to prove your point. No one can tell what you are talking about.

 

Only educated and well-informed know what I'm on about. As to why you continue to ask me to list "specific actions" when they are apparent and in your face, it couldn't be any more of the aforementioned.

 

There is a tradition of discussing questions of morals-- out of enjoyment for, and interest in the wrestling with the ideas, and sorting out the ethical puzzles (believe it or not). If you find this not a good use for your own time, it seems curious, then, you had replied in the first place, if only to state a self-evident fact, but not voice your personal opinion. Apparently you'd found that a better use of your time.

I disagree with this, that it is likely one will find a scenario, in which rape had been "justified," at least not from our modern perspective.

 

While infidelity is not a crime, I do think that most would identify the spouse as the "clear victim," even if the spouse does not find out. I thought it had made a good example, of someone doing something "wrong," but which many justify with the excuse that "no one will ever know, so no harm done." First off, no one believes they will get caught having an affair, but they very often are discovered. Additionally, are many instances in which even if no smoking gun is found, the spouse's suspicions do become raised, which could be argued damages the trust in a relationship, regardless of whatever way, the cheater tries to explain away the concerns-- probably also believing, falsely, that he or she had been clever enough to dispell all of their mate's anxiety. Even in the cases of some of those who are never questioned, so think they've committed the "perfect crime, the significant other has only decided not to bring it up, and the adulterer is deluding himself, thinking he's slick.

The reason why this made a good test case, is that it brought into the equation, the idea of intention. Despite two people having the same intent, and committing the same act, I had judged the OP (perhaps incorrectly), by its use of the word "deserve," to be implying that it is the sloppiness which allows a crime to be traced to a person, that is actually, alone, what separates an offense for which one deserves to go to prison, from one for which the perpetrator deserves to be held blameless.

As you had implied, I am talking more about morals than about law-- but we all know, already, that if there is no evidence against a person, they should not be convicted in a trial. Therefore, I feel the OP must mean to imply some judgement of the situation, beyond just the legal one.