Analysis Of Rich L. Michael's The Perfect Non-Crime

871 Words2 Pages

"Those that sacrifice freedom for security will not have nor deserve either one."(Franklin, Benjamin) This quote comes to mind as I read "The Perfect Non-Crime" by Rich L. Michael. In Michael's essay he criticizes what he defines as "perfect prevention" or government actions that completely remove the ability to commit a crime. I mostly agree with Michael's stance; however, I feel that I am divergent from his stance somewhat. Where Michael says that there are some cases in which perfect prevention is acceptable, I say that because of how difficult it is to classify the rare cases of acceptable "perfect prevention" that it is best to not use it at all. One such hypothetical case is the government distribution of mind altering drugs …show more content…

Most are familiar with the phrase "If you truly love it, set it free." There is a grander implantation of the phrase. For example, in the bible God created man and woman. God also created the Tree of Knowledge and said not to eat from it. This was the one sin that they were capable of committing. Adam and Eve only new one right and one wrong which was not to eat from the tree or to eat from it. Why would God create the opportunity for them to sin? If he did not create the tree they could not have done wrong. The answer is that he loved them so much that he gave them free will and the ability to sin. This relates to the question of morality with our government. It is not the place of the government to remove our ability to commit crime or the thoughts of crime. Punishment, rather than prevention, should be the focus of our judicial system. That fear of punishment should be the sole preventive of crime. As Michael stated,"Using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom." Thus, it is better to allow the possibility of a crime being committed and punished if found guilty rather than preventing it entirely at the cost of

Open Document