Crime -Redrafted

Does the over abundance of freedom limiting laws create crime?

     There are people who believe that men have it in their nature to commit crime, and therefore it is necessary to write laws. Still others believe that with or without crime we cannot have order without laws. I believe there are Nature’s laws; having natural, expected, and accepted consequences. Then there are Man’s laws; a lot of them. Does the unnecessary writing of these freedom limiting laws create crime?

     On the one hand, it is argued that people do bad things. We see the result of these poor choices, it scares us, and so we call it a crime. Well, if it is a crime, let’s create a law that will define it as criminal action and therefore give it a consequence. By giving it a known punishment, we create a sense of security. We sleep better at night knowing we have created a threat against these actions.

     For example, we see a case in which someone was under the influence of an ‘illegal’ drug, a fight broke out, and accident occurred, and a life was lost. As a society we have a tendency to not only blame the individual accountable, but we also blame the drug. The loss of life is a tragedy, so we instate a law that prohibits use of that drug, instead of just punishing the individual responsible for the accident. We do not gain anything by blaming the substance; unless perhaps, a false sense of security that under threat of law it may not happen again.

            We currently see an increase of ‘crime’ in relation to the war on drugs. Suppose we didn’t create those laws that prohibit the trading, marketing and use of those substances, and instead punished only the individual that infringes on another individual’s life, liberty, and property. That way whether they are “under-the-influence” or not, we hold persons accountable for their harmful actions against another. Would we see a decrease in the theft, smuggling, blackmail, rape, and murders that are related to the “illegal” drug trade? Would we see increased caution and consideration when people choose to use such harmful substances just as already engage in drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes?

     Let me give you a scenario. In the United States alone, an average 146 billion cups of coffee are consumed in one year. Morning, noon, and night this mug of brewed-bean juice is savored and relied on. What if we declared coffee as an addictive substance that may cause people to act in an unnatural way? i.e. cheerful and alert at seven am. So we create a law that prohibits the consuming of coffee beans in any form. Do you see millions of people suddenly curbing the craving and conforming to the “law”? Or do we now have millions of coffee lovers that are now committing a crime according to the definition of the new law? The act of drinking coffee is not criminal nor does it have malicious intent. But that mad-made collection of words that we call “law” has created a crime, and millions of criminals. I daren’t say what these brewed-bean-loving dependants will do to satisfy that craving. Heaven forbid they break the law.

     Scary things happen in the world, and out of fear we want to place blame. If we can determine a cause (valid or not) and create a threat under force of law against that cause, we feel we have the power. We’ve created security. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, in cultures around the world. And we see more and more crime. Do these laws truly protect us? Or does the over abundance of freedom limiting laws create crime?