تعبير عن الجرائم بالانجليزي
تعبير عن الجرائم بالانجليزي قصير
الجريمة جرائم الكمبيوتر بالانجليزي
باللغه الانجليزيه
جريمه قصيره بالانجليزي
قصة جريمة
سرقة بالانجليزي
قصة جريمة بالانجليزي قصيرة
يرتكب جريمة
Violence and fear, as we have seen, are characterized by their universal character and their relation to the norm. Individual, collective, institutionalized, violence and fear are constantly coalescing in the very establishment of relationships between individuals, groups and the powers that govern them. In addition, they are able to guide the knowledge that governs and reassures the community as individuals. In this whole process, where reason is trying to reassure us, fiction can easily slip. Reason builds its buildings with real and imaginary materials. We have seen in this respect that because crime and its author are real and imaginary, they also constitute violence and fear.
Crime presents some of the many facets in which reason, truth, justice trace their path, just bordering on unreason, fiction, subjectivity. The legal category of crime, this criminal norm, was established to reassure itself and appears most natural whereas in fact it is constructed (like other norms) from various interest groups, multiple transactions, strokes of all kinds. In this process of construction itself, as seen, for example, with the oldest crimes (murder) and with all-new crimes (domestic violence), objectivity and subjectivity, imaginary and real, are imposed not only in the designation what is the crime, but also in the definition of its author as in the case of the murderer or that of the violent man. It must be understood that this partial and partial vision of crime and the criminal leads to a reaction and an intervention that can not easily get rid of such a representation. Is there a way to go beyond this vision to do otherwise? In other words, while questioning what is designated as violence, while questioning what is forging fears, is it "reasonable" to see and do differently, to set limits to violence? who could at the same time reassure us, especially with regard to crime?
3We are faced with a particular dilemma, an old dilemma in many cultures or at least in various settings.
4If violence sets itself up to standard, it is understood that it can not be dissipated. Yet, must we admit that violence leads to violence, whether it is induced by fear, insecurity or a desire to reassure oneself? Is it possible to break this vicious circle of using violence to stop violence, even though this job perpetuates it? Is it possible to moderate the use of the criminal law to reduce crime? We believe that linking the end and the means is one of the possible ways, especially in the present time. Let us already point out that linking ends and means can only be a goal, allowing a reduction of violence and perhaps a reduction of fear. It is a goal that focuses on non-violence, towards a society, a (criminal) justice whose purpose is not only to punish.
5Utopia in a way that this idea of non-violence when we see the immense presence of violence. On the other hand, it must be noted, the use of violence to counter violence is no less a utopia, without this time considerations for the other as equal. So it is important to examine this other utopia of non-violence and how it leads to a particular notion of the human being and the truth, how it poses the question of the end and the means, how it can to lead us to consider the force of mimetic desire, a possible source of violence.
Nonviolence is "resistance to evil," as Tolstoy says, who was the first to attempt to understand its essence in the early twentieth century. It was with Gandhi that he exchanged his ideas on the subject. But for the latter, non-violence is perhaps at the same time a means, a resistance if necessary, and a way of being. Ahimsa, non-violence, is a philosophy, a mystique that makes us reach the essence of the human being. The principle of non-violence would then coincide with the law of the human species (Dadoun, 1990: 71 et seq.). This coincidence is established by the very fact that non-violence is intended to break the system of creative violence of man. Non-violence is a way of being fundamental, it is a way of doing things, a way of practicing oneself practically. Gandhi asserts, indeed, that "non-violence is the most innocuous and effective way to assert the political and economic rights of all those who are oppressed and exploited" (Gandhi, in Vaillant, 1990: 23). He goes on to say that "non-violence is not a monastic virtue intended to provide inner peace and to guarantee individual salvation.