what is difference between criminal act and a morrally unethical act?
157128
The time you spend in jail when getting caught.
203079
Illegal. You will go to jail, and will deserve worse than that.
998783
gravesendian said it perfectly as far as I'm concerned.  I agree 100%.  \n\nMorality is a purely human construct.  What is "moral" or lawful in one part of the world, can be immoral or illegal in another part.  Take prosititution...in some countries it is legal, in others not.  What makes the difference?  Difference in human perception...difference in what is considered an acceptable standard of behaviour.
710304
An illegal act that is felt to have no direct or identifiable victim\n\nExample: For example, Margaret Sanger who founded the first birth control clinic in New York City was accused of distributing obscene material and violating public morals. Information about birth control is no longer considered obscene (see the U.S. case law examples).
431887
In general, an aggravated version of a crime is more serious. That can be for several different reasons, and they would depend on the state.
1169217
I warn you this is a question that is solliciting for people to break a lot of laws.\n\nThat is an act that fals under the criminal law in any country.\n\nI warn you to stop these activities.\n\nIf you want information about a celibrety you can just directly ask the question on this site and maybe someone knows the answer and is willing to give it to you.\n\nThat is not against the law.
597760
The answer is yes.  To commit a crime, two separate elements must be met.  First, the actus reus - or act.  You must do something that is prohibited.  Damaging someone's property is illegal (if nothing else it is a trespass).  Second, is the mens rea, or the guilty mind.  Every crime carries with it a different level of intent needed in order to be guilty.  For example for capital murder, the level of intent required is very high.  The murderer must have premeditated the crime and intended to cause the death of his victim.  For damaging someone's property, it is likely enough that you were simply negligent.  Anything more, such as intentionally damaging the property would also suffice.  So from your example, and assuming in the hypothetical that you intended, or at least were negligent in causing the damage then you have committed a crime.  It is absolutely irrevelevant whether anyone saw you do it.  Of course if there is no proof, then it's difficult to convict you - but that's not the question.  Did you commit a crime?  Absolutely.
820228
wrongdoings and mistakes are categorical. it may be wrong in one perspective but may be right in another. even in the courts of law criminals are determined to be guilty or not. \nhowever, in both instances, "wrong" and "mistake" are decisions made. one decides to his/her best ability that the action to be done is the right one. it is now those who are to be affected by this action who will decide if it is right or wrong, correct or a mistake. \nyour choice to an answer in a test is always your best answer.committing murder may also be the best solution to the criminal.
177810
theft.\n dishonestly appropriate, property belonging to another,with the intention of permenantly depriving the other of such property.
1164462
The law is interrupted by the jurisdiction under which the crime is committed.  Accidentally is the operative word.  Then you shall see who owns your hummer then.
399426
committing\n\nHe is committing a crime as we speak.
618628
The crime of murder is broken into two sections: you must first have the necessary mens rea, this is the intetion.  For murder - you must have an intention to kill or wicked recklessness.\n\nThe actus reus is the act of killing somebody.\n\nBoth must be satsified before somebody can be convicted of murder - in theory anyway
390201
To one degree or another, all criminal laws are ineffective, because we have to try to achieve the conflicting aims of controlling the undesired behavior while minimizing the impact on the rest of society, including the conviction of innocent people.  Where there is a law that seems to be particularly ineffective, it is usually either because it is not a very popular law to begin with, or because the subject matter of the law makes it difficult to catch all the bad guys in the law’s net without catching too many innocent people.  That’s not a direct answer to your question, but maybe it helps to explain why the problem exists in the first place.
1002885
A "natural crime" is a crime that breaks moral laws or standards rather than legal ones.\n\nFor example, cheating on your girlfriend or lying to your boss are "natural crimes" but not legal ones.
865822
I'm not sure I exactly understand the supposition you're making.  In general, however, I would argue that moral and legal can be viewed as a Venn diagram - an act can be both, one of the other, or neither.  We probably wouldn't want it any other way, actually - hence the saying that "you can't legislate morality."
866608
An "illegal alien" has committed a crime by entering a country illegally. I am law-abiding and here legally.\n\nOther than that, nothing.
886259
The difference between the two is more like Dolphins and Porpoises not Lions and Bats.\n\nThe reason one is legal and the other is not, is because the law says one is legal and the other is not. The actual difference between the two acts are hard to see. It is not legal to have sex with someone for money, but is totally legal to have sex with someone free. It is not legal to have sex with someone for money, but it is totally legal to have film two other people having for money if you sell that film commercially. A rational, logical human being would never be able to understand this, which is why it is something only lawyers and politicians could come up with.\n\nThe bottom line is they could make prostitution legal, they chose not to, they could make porn illegal they chose not to. It is one of those cases where the difference is only what the court says is the difference. Great question.