.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 424
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 34
Date:         Thu, 07 Sep 89 21:58:37 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: Homer's 'Criminality'
To:           Discussion of Ethics in Computing ,
              adore-l@ualtavm
In-Reply-To:  Message of Thu, 7 Sep 89 10:44:54 EDT from 

>of these three words would serve better than 'criminality'.  *I* would
>define 'criminal' as any act formally defined as a crime, and then point
>out that criminal acts are not necessarily evil.  Is there some point
>that I'm missing?
>                                  - - -Wish- - -

     No, not at all.  Your semantics however are disagreeable to me.
But it is all arbitrary.

     I do not like the idea that someone should be branded a title
i.e. criminal, just because the law includes him in a group.
Besides usually the implication is that if someone has been
branded a criminal then they have done something unethical.

     Thus TELLING people that being criminal does not mean they
have done something unethical is somewhat ineffective.

      Just as theft is comitted by thieves, CRIMES are comitted by
criminals.  The word CRIME to me means something totally removed
from any legal connections it might have.  Of course I could
be semantically out in left field.

     If you are going to brand someone a name, like criminal, it
should be for something concrete about the person, not for something
that is a matter of others decree.

 Homer               Discussion of Ethic  9/07/89*Homer's 'Criminality'