How do you balance prevention with reaction in a free society?
So consider people who are incorrigibly hell-bent on crimes and let's say they also have no remorse for the sake of argument. You know they will harm someone; it's just a matter of time.
In that case, do you wait for something bad to happen, knowing there is a high probability that someone will get hurt because of him?
Technology might bring about some tools, but philosophically and immediately, how do you deal with this?
Prevention is the justification that many statists have. And frankly, I can't rebuttal the grounds, although I completely disagree that a government should be given power in light of that grounds.
This goes back to the other question of nonaggression principle, being applied fully on a criminal. Self defense is obviously allowed under the NAP.
But I feel the NAP and waiting for technological solutions doesn't address the core pragmatic and philosophical problem posed here.Filed under: Law, Crime, Courts, Police & Prisons, preventative, prevent, Prevention, balance, incident, reaction, crime
Login / Join