RIGHT, BUT WRONG

source

There was this incident that occurred one time when I was a much younger boy. I think I was in high school at the time. One early morning, we heard shouts and all rushed outside.

Apparently, a young boy, merely a child, was caught trying to steal bread from a store. People had gathered around. One person was already beating him. Everyone couldn't join in. He was only a child. A teenager. The boy was crying, and from interrogation, he said he hadn't eaten and was hungry and all of that.

He said he didn't have any parents to care for him and all that. Long story short, most people began to empathize with him, and somebody even got him beverages. They cautioned him and let him go with looks of pity on their faces. Me, I was concerned.

For a while, the story ruled my street. You would hear people say things like; 'if only he had people to care for him, he wouldn't steal,' 'e get how hungry go catch person, him no go think straight. And na small pikin sef so wetin again him for do?,'' '...you cannot blame him. Things must be difficult for him.'

It bothered me that nobody thought about what would be the boy's fate when the little beverage he was given finished. I was puzzled if they didn't think that he'd get hungry again and resort to stealing again. People came up with excuses, with some even saying that the government officials steal, yet no one has killed them. I didn't expect anyone to beat him. I wouldn't have wanted that. I was only bothered that people weren't addressing the issue but trying to justify wrongdoing. Cause whether or not the boy stole so he could feed and survive, the point there was that he stole and it is a crime.

You know something? Crime and morality are two different things. Many things that are illegal aren't immoral, amoral, maybe. Many things that are immoral are legal.
If something is immoral, it is always immoral, no matter the rationalizations or justifications.
It is immoral to steal, but if one is starving and steals some food, one can rationalize or even justify their need to eat. That doesn't change the fact that it was immoral.

Under the right circumstances, I could justify almost anything, at least in my own mind, particularly if the reason for doing so was to protect a loved one.

When we say that a crime is justified, it basically means that even though it has all the key elements of a crime, it is, in fact, not a crime. Therefore, it isn't sanctioned. Legal justification makes any actions or inactions that are justified and that agree to the typicality of a crime not be a crime at all.
This is important actually: Justified crimes are not crimes, and this is why they're not sanctioned, because they're not crimes.

Sometimes, people commit crimes based on
compulsion. Say you were being assaulted and you fought back, and that led to some severe injuries on your assailant. Would you not justify your actions then? Of course, you will.

I may not know what crimes are justifiable until the scenarios present themselves, but I do know that crime is justifiable only against crime(defense of self/others). Maybe. My contentiom lies in the thought that crime and justification should not be put in one sentence.

I hope that this was interesting to read. Thanks for coming around.