So you think it's ok to do something to someone that would knowingly make them commit suicide and it's fine as long as you don't actually break the law? You think magically as soon as you break a law then you should be harshly punished because of a potential outcome that you don't think warrants any punishment if you don't break the law?
So if jaywalking is illegal where you are then you should be punished as if you were trying to murder someone, because you could potentially cause an accident that would cause death by walking into the road. But if somewhere else jaywalking is not illegal and you cause an accident that causes a death then it's fine, you should keep living your best life?
*REDACTED BECAUSE WALL OF TEXT*
I'll simplify what I said. LOL:
When J-Walking you know the risk. That's why there are street lights and street rules. Why else would their be? If you don't know the risk, how did you learn to cross the street by yourself? In this case, J walking should be worse than Child Porn because you know you are putting yourself, construction, others and others' cars in danger. Not because of a "Possibility" but because that's what the security and street rules' functionality is there to prevent and you just ignored it completely.
If you didn't know.. Then maybe you'll get lucky and get a "Don't do it again" by the "FBI". XD But I know it doesn't work this way but what if it did? Would it be less J-Walkers if it was enforced like this?
You haven't exhausted any argument, you haven't really put any argument forward. You just feel like you have because we aren't doing the decent thing and just believe you.
Just because something is a crime doesn't mean you should be punished or that you should be punished at the same level as someone else, there are sometimes extenuating circumstances. There can also be aggravating circumstances & so you should be punished more. The world isn't as black and white as you think it is.
*REDACTED AGAIN BECAUSE I MADE ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT NO ONE WANTS TO READ*
Every message I sent was an argument especially the first. You should be punished for doing things that are wrong. say if J-Walking wasn't a crime. Well then that also means everything to do with how the streets function is not a crime to break. J-Walking is legal some areas because it's "Not that deep." But then should we also make running red lights legal next? It's not about a possibility. Possibility is why the security is put in place. Breaking the law or doing something wrong is "You did it or you didn't." Not "Was it possible for you to do it?" And "Was it possible" shouldn't be put on the crime of "You hacked." "Was it possible" was asked when they made the security for it. Just the fact that if that was the case, then we wouldn't need roads at all. Some things shouldn't be a law then we would have a law for every single thing. "Don't hit someone.", "Don't hit someone wearing red shoes." ... etc. It sort of all falls down into different laws that already exist. And if they don't then when the time comes to make it a law, like J-Walking, perhaps it's time for those places to make it a law. But I know that will never happen because the world isn't black and white. I know ti isn't, else people wouldn't be saying and thinking certain things. But pretend if it was black and white and we weren't going off of emotions, morality and etc... Would hacking be a bigger issue? Not because of a "possibility". It's possible to get abducted by aliens if you walk outside. Not really something valid. But something more plausible. Something rules are in place to prevent. Would Child Porn still be a bigger crime?
I'm just looking at the two crimes, Hacking and Child Pornography, based on how many people are involved and the weight of the worst case scenario that people know.
When you hack, you ARE invading privacy. How many people's privacy is impossible to say since hacking is just that broad.
When you make Child Porn, you ARE invading a person's privacy. But it's only one person per abduction. Then we could count "how many people" was invaded and who they were. I don't think "how many people" should be counted on hacking. Then it would be a "per-case" scenario where "You went to jail for 1 day for invading 1 person's privacy.", "You went for 2 days for invading 2 people."
I don't think it works like this. I know it doesn't. But that's my argument. Perhaps it would be better if it did. And pretend if it did work this way, would Child Porn still be considered a higher crime or would it be a lesser crime?
Source
