I sway to neither vote, too. It depends on what kind of crime wee're talking about. If it was government related than no one would ever have to know someone did it, and therefore that person would never have committed a "crime" because, depending on what one did, no one would be affected. If it were religion related -- depending on what religion wee're talking about here -- than it could very well affect someone, and will be known.
Like most philosophy, this can never be truly be answered. Wee can all take stabs though. ^^
Hmm, ethics - I remember doing this in my Philosophy course. Forgotten most of the ideas, though I did like the Utilitarian's approach (greatest good for greatest number of people) - despite some of its criticisms, but I think in the end, society moves towards utilitarianism in a way (for example, slavery was probably considered okay a long long time ago; it's only not considered ethical today because views have changed, thus the balance of utility has shifted (but the problem of measuring and comparing utility still remains)).
According to what I said above, a crime wouldn't "matter" if no-one knew about it (note that crimes can possibly cause negative utility to yourself (ie feeling of guilt)). For example, if someone killed someone else, but absolutely no-one knew about it (very unlikely in the real world) then it wouldn't "be a crime". You may think this is unethical, but the issue here now is that you have actually been told of the crime - if I never mentioned it in the first place, you wouldn't consider anything unethical happening. Besides, would you worry about all the deaths (in the real world) that never "occurred"?
For a more realistic example: piracy - it gets fairly close to the idea of no-one knowing you've committed a crime. You gain (assuming you feel no guilt), but no-one actually loses. On the whole, society gains. This is one of the reasons why piracy is so prolific. So why do people consider it unethical? Because they know about it, but they can't point the finger at anyone (in most cases - theoretically at least) because they don't know whether you've committed piracy. (consider things about ~15 years ago, when piracy practically wasn't an issue - did you consider taping a TV show a crime?).
^ That's my view on the issue :P
i don't think option 2 is a good option,.>!? because a crime is not the same as no crime,. >?!
you are stating >> No Crime is a Crime...
if its no crime,.. then there is no need to talk about a crime,..>!? unless things change,. and that "no crime" turns out to be a crime,.
i can't choose either options,. :(
The government doesn't control crime. The media does. If the government says something is a crime most won't listen, but if the media say it is then more people will be against it.