Freedom Doesn T Commit A Crime

915 Words2 Pages

Bloodshed, amendments to the Constitution, and the systematic classification of people have led to the way the word freedom is defined today, however, over time its original definition has been abused and misconstrued. Freedoms in their purest are permissions or abilities granted to an individual that specify the limitation(s) regarding what they are permitted to do. Without freedoms, individuals would not be individuals, societies could not function, governments would exercise too much power, and almost all of the enjoyable things in life would cease. Freedoms are what give societies innovation, what make people unique and what make life worth living. Without freedoms, society would most likely grind to a halt and any form of progression would …show more content…

In an ideal society one should have the freedom to commit a crime. There would still be laws preventing criminal activities in the ideal society, however, that should not deter an individual from committing a crime if they are so determined. If said crime were one committed without reasonable justification, the person who committed the crime would be convicted and imprisoned. Justification for the crime would vary individually for each case, but if the criminal act were to be ruled as justified, justification would fall under the umbrella of quid pro quo, the person or people who committed the crime should not be labeled as criminals or have any of their rights revoked. It seems nonsensical to even have to say said person or people should maintain their rights, yet the subject is brought up because of a famous example from the 1800s that lies within amendments to the constitution. In 1870, the fifteenth amendment was ratified granting the right to vote to all United States citizens regardless of race, religion, or history of having previously served. The amendment, like all the others, is enforceable by Congress. That being said, the freedom to vote should not be taken away from someone who committed a crime in the past. Assuming said ex-criminal is an American citizen, this right should be inalienable as it is a constitutional right. How come then this is not the case? The definition of freedom must be reformed once again, this time with the intention of the definition

Open Document