War, Violence, and Crimes
War and violent theft share many properties: intrusion, violence, killing, and taking the property of others. War and violent theft also share relevant properties: violence, killing, and taking of property are relevant to moral assessment. However, there are relevant dissimilarities. For example, war often takes place between mutual antagonists. This relevant difference can be developed, perhaps ironically, in another analogical argument: it could be argued that while it would be immoral for a person to just randomly attack neighbors, just as a boxing match between two opponents is morally acceptable, a war between two willing opponents would be morally acceptable as well. For example, attacking your next-door neighbors, killing them and taking their property is immoral. War involves going into a neighboring country, killing people and taking their property, So war is immoral. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. Families are widely recognized as the "most basic institution within any society, because it is within [families] that citizens are born, sheltered, and begin their socialization". The importance and centrality of family is accepted across cultures. Families both influence and are influenced by the wider societies in which they exist. Violent societal-level conflicts affect societies at all levels, especially at the most basic: the family. Families are the building blocks of societies. They perform important functions in providing and nurturing a culture's citizens. It is evident that families in war zones experience a great deal of stress. This inhibits their ability to meet the expectations of families as outlined by the definition of "family." War and political violence have a devastating effect on the family. Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded anti social. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent. Dr. Watson is the example of someone who would employ inductive reasoning. He would look at a body and, if two murders occurred, he could tell after examining both if there were any similarities between the two cases. He might ask the police if a suspect had been apprehended in the first case, and if so, what they could tell him about the man. This would lead him to conclude a similar type of man may have committed a similar crime--or committed them both. Inductive reasoning has its advantages: it is inexpensive, quick, and doesn't require extensive knowledge--or the blending of different disciplines like criminology, psychiatry, psychology, or sociology. Therefore, human behavior isn't necessarily a strong suit of this type of profiler. They are more focused on what they can see and touch and compare only, as was evidenced by our fictitious Dr. Watson.