No Knock raids

[Machine_Washable]

On 9/26/2021 at 4:45 PM, Winchester said:

I'm not saying it's not evil. These are legal distinctions between an act that is criminal by its nature or criminal merely by prohibition. I should have caught that you were transliterating.

Prostitution isn't criminal by its nature, but only because politicians have deemed it a crime. Theft is criminal by its nature. Even when the state legalizes it.

 

No knock raids aren't worth the risk. The state has conflated no knock raids with hostage rescue in a clear attempt to create a gray area where there isn't one. No one ever disputed the occasional need to forcefully enter a building in order to save people being held captive by criminals.

I agree with you about them not being worth the risk. How do you differentiate between crimes that are criminal by their nature and crimes that are criminal by prohibition?

[Winchester]

On 9/29/2021 at 4:07 AM, Machine_Washable said:

I agree with you about them not being worth the risk. How do you differentiate between crimes that are criminal by their nature and crimes that are criminal by prohibition?

Do they violate an involved party's consent? If there is a victim, then it's a crime or a tort.

[Winchester]

On 9/26/2021 at 10:43 PM, Peace said:

No, even if we leave the Church out of it (which would be a ridiculous thing for a Catholic to do when defining actions as moral or immoral by the way) prostitution is not malum prohibitum.

Here is the definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/malum prohibitum

: an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong

Prostitution is inherently evil and wrong, so it is not malum prohibitum.

I didn't say anything about moral and immoral. I said crime or not. I gave context. We're not going to argue about other uses of the words.

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

I didn't say anything about moral and immoral. I said crime or not. I gave context. We're not going to argue about other uses of the words.

Nonsense. You said "malum prohibitum". The definition of "malum prohibitum" requires that an action not be "inherently evil or wrong" (i.e. not immoral). And that is the definition taught in every law school across the country.

If you don't even know what words mean then you should stop using them.

[Winchester]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Nonsense. You said "malum prohibitum". The definition of "malum prohibitum" requires that an action not be "inherently evil or wrong" (i.e. not immoral). And that is the definition taught in every law school across the country.

If you don't even know what words mean then you should stop using them.

Those terms aren't from Catholic theology. They're used quite commonly to distinguish between crime and vice.  I'm not making a theological argument. I would hope you wouldn't want every sin codified into the penal code (not that we should have a penal system, in the first place).

Look up a few lists of "crimes" commonly thought to be malum prohibitum. You'll find prostitution on some of them. 
 

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Winchester said:

Those terms aren't from Catholic theology. They're used quite commonly to distinguish between crime and vice. I'm not making a theological argument.

That does not matter. I gave you the definition from Merriam Webster's dictionary, not a theological source. Here it is again:
 

Quote

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/malum prohibitum

: an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong

 

Now - is prostitution inherently evil or wrong? You tell me.

Prostitution is inherently evil and wrong. You believe that it is wrong, I believe that it is wrong, and most of the people in the country in which we live (assuming the USA) believe that it is wrong.

Therefore, it is not malum prohibitum.

A malum prohibitum crime is a crime that is not inherently evil or wrong - such as jaywalking when it is perfectly safe to do so.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Peace

[Didacus]

22 hours ago, Peace said:

[Snip]

A malum prohibitum crime is a crime that is not inherently evil or wrong - such as jaywalking when it is perfectly safe to do so.

YOU J-WALK!

SERIOUSLY?!

AND YOU OPENLY ADMIT IT ON THE INTERNET?!?!!?

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Didacus said:

YOU J-WALK!

SERIOUSLY?!

AND YOU OPENLY ADMIT IT ON THE INTERNET?!?!!?

Not only do I do such things, but also approve of others who do them.

[Didacus]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Not only do I do such things, but also approve of others who do them.

Criminals come in all colours!!

[Winchester]

On 10/3/2021 at 4:21 PM, Peace said:

That does not matter. I gave you the definition from Merriam Webster's dictionary, not a theological source. Here it is again:
 

Now - is prostitution inherently evil or wrong? You tell me.

Prostitution is inherently evil and wrong. You believe that it is wrong, I believe that it is wrong, and most of the people in the country in which we live (assuming the USA) believe that it is wrong.

Therefore, it is not malum prohibitum.

A malum prohibitum crime is a crime that is not inherently evil or wrong - such as jaywalking when it is perfectly safe to do so.

You used the dictionary, and then applied Catholic morality to decide what is evil and wrong.

If you go beyond Merriam-Webster, you will find that prostitution is commonly understood to fall under malum prohibitum, not malum in se.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Winchester said:

You used the dictionary, and then applied Catholic morality to decide what is evil and wrong.

If you go beyond Merriam-Webster, you will find that prostitution is commonly understood to fall under malum prohibitum, not malum in se.

Do YOU consider prostitution to be evil and wrong?

Your argument is a silly one for any Catholic Christian to make. The Catholic Church is the best entity to refer to when deciding what is morally evil and what is morally good (or neutral). What the Catholic Church teaches is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It is not simply "Catholic Morality" as if the real truth or the real "right and wrong" is to be found elsewhere. If we are deciding what is evil and wrong, which is a prerequisite in determining whether an action is malum prohibitum or malum in se, then it is proper to refer to the Catholic Church, which teaches the ABSOLUTE TRUTH with respect to what is good and evil.

Malum prohibitum is action that is not inherently evil, such as crossing the street at a red light when there is no traffic and it is completely safe to cross, but the action is nevertheless criminalized. Malum in se actions are inherently wrong. Are you trying to tell me that sticking your penis inside the body of a prostitute and giving her money for it is the same thing as jaywalking? Neither one of these things is wrong? They are morally equivalent? Give me a break. Actually. Give me a Kit-Kat.

And if you don't like Merriam-Webster, you are free to translate the Latin directly yourself:

malum prohibitum: wrong because it is prohibited

malum in se: wrong in itself.

Is prostitution wrong in itself, or is it wrong merely because it is prohibited? You tell me.

Prostitution is wrong in itself. That is an absolute, objective truth. It is not merely wrong because your Catechism says it is wrong, but would otherwise be totally moral if the Catechism and the Bible were silent on the matter.

Thus, because Prostitution is wrong in itself, it cannot be malum prohibitum. The only way for you to avoid this conclusion is to deny your faith and argue that prostitution is not a morally evil act in itself. And not even you are going to do that. You lose. Go take a nap.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Peace

[Winchester]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Do YOU consider prostitution to be evil and wrong?

Your argument is a silly one for any Catholic Christian to make. The Catholic Church is the best entity to refer to when deciding what is morally evil and what is morally good (or neutral). What the Catholic Church teaches is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It is not simply "Catholic Morality" as if the real truth or the real "right and wrong" is to be found elsewhere. If we are deciding what is evil and wrong, which is a prerequisite in determining whether an action is malum prohibitum or malum in se, then it is proper to refer to the Catholic Church, which teaches the ABSOLUTE TRUTH with respect to what is good and evil.

Malum prohibitum is action that is not inherently evil, such as crossing the street at a red light when there is no traffic and it is completely safe to cross, but the action is nevertheless criminalized. Malum in se actions are inherently wrong. Are you trying to tell me that sticking your penis inside the body of a prostitute and giving her money for it is the same thing as jaywalking? Neither one of these things is wrong? They are morally equivalent? Give me a break. Actually. Give me a Kit-Kat.

And if you don't like Merriam-Webster, you are free to translate the Latin directly yourself:

malum prohibitum: wrong because it is prohibited

malum in se: wrong in itself.

Is prostitution wrong in itself, or is it wrong merely because it is prohibited? You tell me.

Prostitution is wrong in itself. That is an absolute, objective truth. It is not merely wrong because your Catechism says it is wrong, but would otherwise be totally moral if the Catechism and the Bible were silent on the matter.

Thus, because Prostitution is wrong in itself, it cannot be malum prohibitum. The only way for you to avoid this conclusion is to deny your faith and argue that prostitution is not a morally evil act in itself. And not even you are going to do that. You lose. Go take a nap.

We're talking about criminal law, not moral theology. That's the sense in which all those words are used. "Evil" in this case is not a synonym for things the Church considers to be sinful. 
 

[Peace]

22 hours ago, Winchester said:

We're talking about criminal law, not moral theology. That's the sense in which all those words are used. "Evil" in this case is not a synonym for things the Church considers to be sinful. 
 

Again, do YOU consider prostitution. Yes or No?

Both YOU and I know the answer is "Yes" so you have no argument.

If you want something from a criminal law decision from a court - here you are:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3927165/state-v-horton/

Quote

An offense malum in se is properly defined as one which is naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community, whereas an actmalum prohibitum is wrong only because made so by statute. For the reason that acts mala in se have, as a rule, become criminal offenses by the course and development of the common law, an impression has sometimes obtained that only acts can be so classified which the common law makes criminal, but this is not at all the test. An act can be, and frequently is, malum in se, when it amounts only to a civil trespass, provided it has a malicious element or manifests an evil nature, or wrongful disposition to harm or injure another in his person or property. Bishop New Cr. Law,supra; Com. v. Adams, supra.

The community in which both you and I live, and in which the laws that we have been discussing originate, views prostitution as evil.

YOU, I, every almost member of this forum, and a vast majority of the people in the community in which we live view prostitution as evil. So prostitution is not malum prohibitum.

You have no case. You still lose. Have another nice nap.

[Winchester]

23 hours ago, Peace said:

Again, do YOU consider prostitution. Yes or No?

Both YOU and I know the answer is "Yes" so you have no argument.

If you want something from a criminal law decision from a court - here you are:

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3927165/state-v-horton/

The community in which both you and I live, and in which the laws that we have been discussing originate, views prostitution as evil.

YOU, I, every almost member of this forum, and a vast majority of the people in the community in which we live view prostitution as evil. So prostitution is not malum prohibitum.

You have no case. You still lose. Have another nice nap.

Again: These are legal terms, not theological, and prostitution is considered malum prohibitum. 
 

Yeah, you'll be able to find people that agree with you. I don't care. You can't make me agree with you. I can't make you agree with me.

No, I'm not going to support your desire to criminalize every sinful behavior.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Again: These are legal terms, not theological

I gave you a legal definition from a court of law. You have no case, other than the one I just gave you.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

Yeah, you'll be able to find people that agree with you. I don't care. You can't make me agree with you.

Yes I can. I just choose not to force you, being the benevolent dictator that I am.

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

No, I'm not going to support your desire to criminalize every sinful behavior.

But why stop with sinful behavior? Let's penalize stupidity too - starting with your assertion that prostitution is not a crime that should be punished!