In this Singapore matter people are losing touch with the purpose of a law. A law is not to arbitrarily establish what is wrong. A law exists solely to give the government the pretext of pursuing the punishment for the crime.
The comments are arising regarding the punishment for vandalism in Singapore and that if he knew the penalty he deserves the punishment. This is completely wrong. Even if he did not know the law existed he would not have been justified in vandalism.
It does not matter whether or not the law exists. Example: Is it right for one child to damage the toy of another? It is obviously beneath the notice of the state. It is a wrong action and we all know it.
Is it right to vandalize the property of an adult regardless of the punishment or even the existence of a law? We know it is a wrong action without needing the guidance of the law of the state.
We have ingrained the idea of getting caught being a significant factor in the commission of the action. There are hundreds a grey areas, granted. There are many areas to be debated. The debate in such cases belongs in the domain of the jury and not in the strict violation of the law.
But the crimes that are of concern to all of us are the simple ones. No one would argue theft is permissible regardless of the existence of a law.
However we are caught in a problem of logic. While we can say the existence of the penalty of Singapore will deter this specific crime we must acknowledge that had he known the penalty for this crime he may have been deterred from the commission of the crime. May is the operative word here as others involved in this crime have been convicted. Obviously it is only some and not all who are deterred. This does not appear to alter the basic discussion.
As we do not need laws to know certain actions are wrong we do not need laws save when we exist in a society which takes responsibility for the punishment of certain specified actions. As in the last article in so doing it is the responsibility of the government in its assumption of responsibility to act in a manner as to deter the commission of the crime in the first place. Without acting to deter the crime there is justification for the government intervening.
We do not get our knowledge of right and wrong from the law whether handed down from the mountain or from the Congress. I am not going to add my speculation to many who have devoted major parts of their lives to such speculation in this article. (I will eventually.) I will point out that none of the functional or learned suggestions make sense. It appears we are born with this knowledge or have a proclivity to learn it as easily as we learn to speak any language to which we are born.
Our laws do reflect our society and the idea that the government is the arbiter of moral behavior is no different from the elder of the family or of the tribe being the arbiter. It is something that can not be said is not learned. It is no necessary to know the extent of the punishment or to believe that it will be applied as those are peripheral to the unacceptability of the act.