Thursday, August 23, 2012
This essay came to my attention after hearing about all the violent acts of
crime happening not only in the United States, but also locally in Wisconsin.
The author, Michael L. Rich, brings a compelling argument to the table and
questions just how far authorities can push the line of punishment until they
are violating people's personal freedom.
Rich's largest argument in the essay was about the distinction between mere thoughts and actions. I didn't realize that there was an entire section to our law system that has to do with so-called strict-liability offenses. In this category of crime, the crimes committed are forbidden regardless of the actor's state of mind. It was at this point that I started to disagree with what Rich had to say."In such cases, using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom; it would simply be effective enforcement of the statute" (Rich 3). He goes on to explain that if there was only some sort of technology that had the ability to read citizen's minds and assess if that person was mentally unstable or not. Almost like a sort of mind reading device. In my mind, I would not like the government to intrude on my personal thoughts. The line must be drawn in the sand at some point. Although Rich may be on the right track to crime prevention, I couldn't get past this major flaw in his argument.
The other flaw in his argument that I found while reading was about having breathalyzers installed into every car. "The program, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, is developing in-vehicle technology that automatically checks a driver's blood-alcohol level and, if that level is above the legal limit, prevents the car from starting" (Rich 1). I understand that drunken driving is a growing concern especially in Wisconsin; however, what if you were the person who was the designated driver for the night out with your friends? With that many drunk people in your car would the car not start? I do agree that if the company were to perfect this technology that it would practically deprive people of the choice to commit the crime in the first place. As for right now however, I feel that the technology is too premature and still needs reconsideration and further evaluation.
This essay gives a new look to how people commit crimes, and just how far the authorities can go to stop them. It is certainly hard to stop a lot of these crimes without infringing on people's personal freedom. We must draw the line in the sand somewhere!
Rich's largest argument in the essay was about the distinction between mere thoughts and actions. I didn't realize that there was an entire section to our law system that has to do with so-called strict-liability offenses. In this category of crime, the crimes committed are forbidden regardless of the actor's state of mind. It was at this point that I started to disagree with what Rich had to say."In such cases, using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom; it would simply be effective enforcement of the statute" (Rich 3). He goes on to explain that if there was only some sort of technology that had the ability to read citizen's minds and assess if that person was mentally unstable or not. Almost like a sort of mind reading device. In my mind, I would not like the government to intrude on my personal thoughts. The line must be drawn in the sand at some point. Although Rich may be on the right track to crime prevention, I couldn't get past this major flaw in his argument.
The other flaw in his argument that I found while reading was about having breathalyzers installed into every car. "The program, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, is developing in-vehicle technology that automatically checks a driver's blood-alcohol level and, if that level is above the legal limit, prevents the car from starting" (Rich 1). I understand that drunken driving is a growing concern especially in Wisconsin; however, what if you were the person who was the designated driver for the night out with your friends? With that many drunk people in your car would the car not start? I do agree that if the company were to perfect this technology that it would practically deprive people of the choice to commit the crime in the first place. As for right now however, I feel that the technology is too premature and still needs reconsideration and further evaluation.
This essay gives a new look to how people commit crimes, and just how far the authorities can go to stop them. It is certainly hard to stop a lot of these crimes without infringing on people's personal freedom. We must draw the line in the sand somewhere!
No comments:
Post a Comment