A teenaged boy, Andrew, who works at a Goodwill in Florida recently came close to having charges pressed against him for giving customers huge discounts without approval. At first, his illegal actions resulted in him getting fired and arrested. However, this didn’t last long as Goodwill had a change of heart shortly after. Rather than focusing on the illegal aspect of what Andrew had done, Goodwill took it into consideration that Andrew did what he did for the sake of the well-being of others rather than himself. Once they realized the selflessness and innocence of his actions, the charges were dropped. The argument for this can be summed up as:
Criminals do not break the law for the sake of others
Andrew broke the law for the sake of others
Therefore, Andrew is not a criminal
In conclusion, Andrew not being a criminal would be a valid argument considering the premises. However, the word “criminal” has a different definition to different people. Some may view his actions as harmless and selfless, like the other employees at Goodwill did, but others may argue that what he did was illegal and that should be enough to define him as a criminal. In addition, there is no proof that no criminal would break the law for the sake of others. Although charges weren’t pressed, Andrew was still fired from his job at Goodwill, which further demonstrates how his actions were still seen as wrong and not completely innocent. Whether or not he should be considered a criminal is hard to say, as both sides of the argument are valid but neither is factually correct.