- This topic has 20 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m in my third month of 6 of an introductory to Canadian Law. I’m not sure if this question applies everywhere, but it’s pretty general so it probably will.
I had this on a test last week, and the answer sort of baffeled me. I would like what you think (or know, which is even better) the answer is. It’s really easy to debate as far as I’m concerned, so let’s see where it goes.
To break the law, you must do something
T / FNow, to your self, you must think (and this is what confused me), if you’re not doing anything how are you able to break the law, let alone DO anything? Apparently according to my teacher who marked it, the answer is false. You don’t have to do anything to break the law.
So this is what I want to hear from you guys. Can you support that answer? How do you break the law without doing something?
Sure you can break the law by doing nothing. If you see a crime committed and it’s “the law” to report said crime….by doing “nothing” you are breaking the law.
I understand that. But, by doing “nothing” you are actually doing something, no? I realise that is going really deep into the question, or perhaps thinking outside the box when it’s not needed, but am I still right though?
Just thinking to my self,
if you don’t report a committed crime you’ve observed, which specific law are you breaking? Upon breaking that law, you had to have done something to break it, and in this case, done nothing.
Does it make sense “to do nothing is to do something” in this case? Wow… when did law turn into physology… heh
It can be argued (and in fact I almost wrote it in my original post) that you are doing something by making a concerted effort to do nothing. If you are ignorant of the law, and do not do what you are compelled to do by law…and therefore do nothing…you are indeed breaking the law by doing nothing.
In Australia you can also get in legal trouble if your accountant does something ilegal in your income statements you have to submit to the government. I guess in a sense thats breaking the law if your not doing anything.
It’s a stupid question though.
Det, I know in America you are legally forced to wear a seatbelt in a car. So by “not doing anything” meaning not putting it on, you are breaking a law. That’s the only example I can come up with now. Oh wait! What about illegally immigrating? By “not doing anything” you don’t fill out forms and whatnot to become a citizen, therefore breaking a rule. That’s about all I can think of though.
MrEggsalad wrote:Det, I know in America you are legally forced to wear a seatbelt in a car. So by “not doing anything” meaning not putting it on, you are breaking a law. That’s the only example I can come up with now. Oh wait! What about illegally immigrating? By “not doing anything” you don’t fill out forms and whatnot to become a citizen, therefore breaking a rule. That’s about all I can think of though.the illegal immigration one doesn’t work… because the act of entering the country through a channel other than the legitimate immigration process counts as doing something. they weren’t simply *poof* in our country, they made a decision to come in and had to do something to get there.
the seatbelt one works though. it follows the same principle that Oreo mentioned… you’re making a decision to not do something…. so it’s a grey area.
The question really wasn’t that good of one, I mean there are so many ways to look at it, like “They are making a desicion to not do something” and that counts as doing something. Or, thoughts don’t count and just not doing it breaks the law. That’s a very hard question, heh.
I know that my teacher didn’t indent to make it into this type of question, but I am actually loosing sleep over it, and it’s really frustrating.
I mean, I realise that not wearing your seatbelt is “not doing something” same as not reporting a crime (no more examples! :P). But in theory, by not doing something, is still doing something is it not? That souds so weird, but am I not right?
You are looking way far too deep into that question. “To break the law, you must do something”. Yes (technically) doing nothing is something but you must understand she isn’t asking if you are doing nothing, she is asking if you are doing something. So as Oreo stated before there are ways to break the law by doing nothing. So that makes the statement false. So the way i see it, it’s all in the way she phrased it, because by putting “must do something” she excluded the notion of doing nothing which is a possible way of breaking the law. So yeah i hope i made myself clear. (in real meaning without adding in but’s or maybe’s, something and nothing are complete oppostie words)
EDIT: I thought the following questions might help:
To break the law, you must do something – F (the reasoning i gave above)
To break the law, you must do something or nothing – T (it includes both notions) (and yes i phrased this poorly but i think you get what i mean)
To break the law, you must do nothing – F (it excludes the notion of doing something)Perhaps your teacher was simply asking if you could break a law without physically commiting a crime. Like in a conspiracy where you don’t actually commit the crime, but you conspired to commit it.
Hmm… you can in fact (at least in the USA) be convicted of “conspiracy to commit” murder, fraud, etc… I’m not sure how far that could go in terms of “doing something” though. If you’re only *thinking* of murdering someone, that’s not a crime, so I think they have to come up with evidence that you took steps towards the fulfillment of that intention… like if you bought a shotgun, or collected data on someone whom you intended to defraud.
Well, if you were say, canoeing down the river, and saw a body floating, and didn’t bother calling authorities… That is breaking the law. You are not doing anything physically to do “something”. (Picking up the phone to call 911).
Also, yes EggSalad is right. Not putting on your seatbelt=not doing anything =breaking the law=ticket.
But still, that question is very vauge… Your teacher should have explained it more. = /
Well, I’m not sure. I mean, you can get silly and say “thinking is doing”, but if you just look at it, well, the law requires you to do certain things. Like another, not paying your taxes, you didn’t pay (didn’t do something) and you get in trouble. Really (I talked to my mom about this one, just bored and wanted to talk) she gave the answer of false. There are things the lay requires you to DO. So by not doing, you are breaking the law.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.