What Does Freedom to Commit a Crime Mean?

One of my favorite movies was the James Bond movies, Agent 007. In most of them, through various intrigues, something, an important piece of technology, for example, is stolen or, let's be merciful, captured and destroyed. This operation involves exciting scenes. Our hero usually does this operation with the help of some interesting technological gadgets, I don't know, he uses a bomb that looks like a watch, he has a hidden camera that looks like a fountain pen, or whatever, there are a lot of interesting gadgets in the movie. His car, for example, is special, the license plate number changes automatically, it goes much faster than normal, in some scenes machine guns come out of the car and blow the place to smithereens, sometimes the car flies, sometimes it becomes a submarine. But our hero gets out of all these dangerous situations with his charismatic outfit intact. Of course, it is also a classic that he falls in love with the leading lady of the movie every time.

Or other similar action movies have a similar character. Something is always stolen either from a museum, or a rich man's private vault protected by laser lights is entered with hangers without stepping on the ground, or sometimes the desired item is reached and stolen by passing through the laser lights with special gymnastic movements, accompanied by exciting music in the movie. Most of them are very big budget, action-packed movies.

We all watch these exciting scenes in the movie holding our breath. Maybe at that moment we see ourselves in the shoes of the hero, we get caught up in the excitement of the movie.

If we could step out of the excitement of the movie for a moment and think rationally, we would realize that a crime is actually being committed in that scene, and maybe only then would we realize the truth. But no, we can't, we watch the scene with excitement, as if we were the one committing the crime, not caring that it was a crime.

What is a crime? Behavior against the law, sometimes against customs, against morality. Who determines what is a crime and what is not? Throughout history, society has determined it, and customs have been established. Today, parliament and MPs are responsible for laws. With the accumulated knowledge from our history, crime definitions are determined in the form of laws. Each time, some additions or changes are made. 

Of course, there are also international standards, human rights. There are what humanity recognizes as crimes. 

For example, some issues are considered crimes in one country but not in another. The penalties for crimes also vary from country to country, sometimes even within a country, for example in the United States of America, from state to state, from region to region. 

Therefore, some criminals escape punishment by fleeing to such countries. How fair is that? It is debatable, but it is a fact.

But does a person have the freedom to commit a crime? Whatever the reason, one's own personal psychological disorders, the pressure of the society in which one lives, the guidance of the group to which one belongs, tradition, personal mentality, personal wishes, obligations, beliefs, whatever the reason, why does one commit a crime when they know that something is a crime? Sometimes there may be people who do not believe that what they are doing is a crime, they may see it as their right, but in the end what they are doing is a crime for other members of society, it is a crime before the law. How does one decide what is a crime and what is not a crime in one's own inner world? 

Do we have the freedom to knowingly commit a crime? If so, to what limit?

Sometimes some things are actually crimes, even if they are not recognized as crimes by law or in the eyes of society, in these cases, how can a person conscientiously relieve themselves? 

For example, I think it is a crime that we are slowly slaughtering this world as if it belongs only to us. All those factories polluting our seas and rivers are committing a crime every moment. But all of us, including me, can sleep soundly when we put our heads on our pillows at night. Future generations will not have the chance to punish those who commit this crime in the world they are born into. Because we will not be alive. There will be no criminal to punish. 

Again, maybe even slaughtering the chickens, sheep and calves that we produce in farms under who knows what conditions and eating them on our tables is a crime. It is a crime against life. Did you give that life so that you feel you have the right to end it? But who can say no to a delicious roast chicken? I'm not saying this because I'm a vegetarian or vegan. I enjoy a delicious beef steak too. 

Do vegetarians or vegans also think that they are not committing a crime by eating only plant-based food? Aren't plants alive? I think the same conditions apply to plants. But isn't it a cycle of life, what are we going to do, starve ourselves? You're right, if life is going to continue in some way, there has to be this cycle. Then why are you suing the driver who hit a dog on the road with his car, only asked if the bumper was damaged, and then got in his car and drove off? That's the circle of life too! Why didn't he take the dog to a vet and the dog died on the spot? According to the law, in such cases it is an obligation to take the injured animal to the nearest veterinarian. 

I have no objection, in fact, the right thing to do is of course to try to save that life. I criticize the owner of that car myself, I wonder how people can be so unscrupulous. 

But I also love eating eggs in the morning. Eggs are the most important food source of the day for me. But there is actually a life inside that egg. I try to analyze myself why I don't feel the obligation to save that life. My answer is the cycle of life, in some things we feel sensitivity for life, in other things we can ignore that sensitivity according to our needs.

So let's get back to the topic, how far does one have the freedom to commit crimes? 

If what he does is out of necessity, is it really a crime? He was hungry and stole a loaf of bread, maybe he tried hard but to no avail, no one helped him, no one extended a hand, so he was forced to steal. How much of a crime is it in this case? Yes, it is a crime before the law and according to the society we live in, no matter what. But how much of a crime is it in conscience?

If we look at the law and the rules of society in everything, then tax evasion is also a crime, raising a hand against a woman is also a crime. Violence is already a crime, but who complains and how much? Isn't it a saying unique to our society? I am your meat and bone, take this child and raise him/her. Isn't this our understanding? Do the masters treat the children who work as apprentices at a young age in the corners of repair shops very mercifully? Not even a flick?

Recently, a shopkeeper was publicly declaring on the screens that we all evade taxes. So what if he steals, we all steal. 

Is he telling the truth, yes he is. How many companies apply exactly what is written in the law. Why is the minimum wage the average wage in our country, because the minimum wage is the minimum insurance premium that has to be paid by law. Everyone is paid the minimum wage, if they are paid at all. 

And if this is a crime, which it is, how is it that those who evade billions in taxes can walk around freely? You will say it's because they have their backs to the government! Well, then what the government is doing is also a crime! It does not supervise enough or turns a blind eye. 

Periodic tax amnesties are also a crime. Unbalanced taxes are also a crime. All the corruption is also a crime, as well as all the tenders and similar state procurements that have been rigged, and many other things that have been rigged in accordance with the law. 

Internationally, for example, are there no crimes? Isn't what happened to Ukraine also a crime? Who knows how many innocent people died in those missile attacks. They died in other wars too. They are all crimes! Aren't they?

Isn't what happened to the journalist who was murdered in the consulate of Arabia, who was cut into pieces and vaporized with chemicals, also a crime? Even more than a crime, I think it is an atrocity. What about those who embraced the perpetrators of that crime? Is it not complicity when they turn a blind eye? Or is it different, the interests of the country demanded it at that moment, that's why they acted as they did, that's not complicity, is it? That job should be evaluated within the scope of national interests, right? We have already forgotten, a person was born in his time, lived and died. It's in the past now, let's move on, is that it? We have other things to do, whatever happened, one person is not going to affect the relationship between two states!

Let's think the other way around, taking a human life is a great crime. But what do we do if that person is a monster? Okay, the punishment is life imprisonment, aggravated life imprisonment according to our civilized laws. Although when I say aggravated, they don't make you break stones like they used to. I wish they did, at least it would be useful. In Iran, he would be hanging from a crane. Or in Arabia, he would be beheaded, thrown into a pit in the desert and that would be the end of it. But in our country he continues his life in solitary confinement.

They attacked cem houses recently, again a crime, probably a provocation, actually not probably, but for sure. Again someone wants to scratch social fault lines. I don't understand what they want to achieve, is it social unrest again? Possibly, as long as this society does not establish close ties with each other, there will always be such attempts. I think yes, foreign powers are at work again. Let's see if their extensions can be found. Maybe this time they will be found. If they are investigated sufficiently, they can be found somewhere, and probably their extensions, as I said, extend abroad. 

So why don't we as a society show enough sensitivity to this issue? Why are we trying to separate society instead of bringing it together, why are we constantly polarizing it? Isn't it a crime to separate? 

Why do we discriminate against our citizens because they think differently, because they have different interpretations of faith? Isn't this also a crime? I think it is. 

But there is no such crime written in the law, so you can say it is not a crime. But where are the equal rights written in the constitution? Let it be, this issue is not a crime, other issues are crimes, but not this one. 

What can I say, if society wants it that way, there is nothing to do. 

Nowadays, there is a new topic of discussion again, like once upon a time, again the exam questions were leaked or stolen, maybe someone was conspired against, so maybe there are power struggles again. Cults again I guess, different cliques again. Everyone is saying something, I don't know which one is true. Maybe one day it will be clear what really happened. But the labor of so many people has been wasted again. Isn't that a crime? Yes, it is a crime, even showing the state incapable is a crime. Even incompetence in such institutions is a crime, and it is a crime against the whole society. It is also a crime because so many people have been victimized. Aren't those who put those cadres there guilty? Yes, I think they are also guilty. In short, control seems to have gone completely out of hand.

And what happens to us? It seems like almost everyone is guilty in some way, those who voted for the wrong cadres in the elections are also guilty, those who closed their eyes to the crimes committed by those cadres are also guilty. Those who fail to provide good opposition are also guilty, everyone is guilty!

Where everyone is guilty, there is no crime. In this case, everyone has the freedom to commit crimes. 

I sometimes write, as Joseph de Maistre said, "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.", which translates into Turkish as "Every nation is governed as it deserves." 

If we as a society want to live in such a world, what can I say, at this rate, we will not have a world to live in. Our country will also collapse. Then there will be no crime, no criminal, and no freedom to commit crime.

Still, I don't want to end this article so pessimistically, I think we all have the consciousness to draw the boundaries of our freedoms ourselves. Every step we take into someone else's border gives that other person the right to step into our border. Another definition of a crime is the violation of our borders without our permission. 

If we continue in this reckless way, then we are narrowing the borders of our own lives. In a sense, we encourage others to commit crimes. 

Therefore, we should try to build our beautiful future within the limits of respect, without causing any trouble to anyone, and most importantly, by restoring the lost trust mechanism.

In the meantime, I think it is my sincere wish that we enjoy our freedom and live together in peace in this short life, while respecting the rights of future generations.

Love and regards from Moscow