while “justice” has meaning in both a political, moral, and philosophical scope, “crime” is more narrowly (though still not entirely) political/legal. consider that you agree to pick me up from the airport today in exchange that i pick you up on your next trip. if i reneg, and leave you stranded at the airport, that’s probably unjust and triggers implications for whatever system of justice we operate under. but it’s not a crime. it’s only a crime if our agreement had been made in some legally binding manner.

Take the idea of the Christian Underwear Bomber in 2009 who took the lives of many innocent people because it was the “will of God”, or the more recent situation of the Islamic State; targeting the lives of thousands in the name of extremist religious beliefs. […] The viewpoint that one may victimise others for the will of a higher authority is highly detrimental to our society, as what it results in is the innocent being targeted as a means to an end.

my friends tell me that they quite enjoy psychoactive substances, that the ocassional trip helps them stay level-headed in their day-to-day, and that MDMA helps them grow strong social bonds. the impacts from this activity onto anyone distant from it is effectively nil, they are more or less “innocent” for doing it, and yet the state victimizes them for it all the same.

the choice of words in “higher authority” in this quote is telling. many of us would consider it just to hide Ann Frank from political persecution, yet doing so is unambiguously a crime. the quote actually reinforces that notion: to commit a crime is to act against the authority of the state; to view the state as anything less than the absolute authority.

Moreover, crime punishment has progressed over time in terms of the groups of people it benefits. In the past, crimes were punished to enforce normality in societal standards and prevent rebellious characters.

citaton needed, particularly for the second part there. another telling is that with more people living in democracies, societal standards are more likely to reflect the typical citizen’s natural tendencies; and that as the background rate of violence between states decrease, the tolerance for violence within states (including punishment for crime) has similarly decreased – but that the remaining punishments are still just as much for “enforcing normality” as before.