Misunderstanding Crime

A crime is just a violation of a law, and if there is no actual moral obligations/rights that a human law corresponds to (and even then, just because something is immoral does not mean it automatically should be legally punished and vice versa, and not even Mosaic Law does this with every sin), then the law is meaningless and has no authority.  Thus, if there is no such thing as moral obligation or if there is but a national law does not align with it perfectly, there cannot be anything morally wrong about violating that law.  The laws of communities and nations are not rational or morally good of worthy of respect by in themselves.  Anyone who fails to recognize these distinctions and logical truths is not just mildly foolish, but an outright intellectual insect, and yet theological conservatives try to have it both ways so many times.

They loathe the federal government and yet hate people who violate its laws, forgetting that if obeying human laws is morally obligatory as they selectively believe, then that makes Christians who commit to and practice Christianity are evil wherever adhering to Christianity is illegal.  They also forget, if they ever truly realized this to any extent in the first place, the aforementioned truth that human laws inherently lack authority by default on their own to begin with.  No one's preferences, power, or feelings legitimize laws because none of these things make ideas true.  Of course, in a specifically Biblical context, there is also the fact that any Christian who believes Yahweh approves of whatever crimes, laws, and punishments the arbitrary customs or whims or a person in power prefers is a goddamn imbecile.

Not only would this be relativism, which is already logically impossible independent of the Bible since different customs cannot all be just or unjust at the same time, but the Bible in great detail describes what is and is not sin and which sins are and are not to be punished by which penalties.  It is just that this is almost wholly found in Mosaic Law rather than the New Testament commands that are at best ambiguous or without any basis on their own.  Conservative Christians, emotionalistically clinging to traditions rather than true Biblical theology, do not even know what the actual contents and ramifications of the Bible are beyond shallow, isolated bursts.  They are largely content to condemn those who break American laws as evil and the criminal penalties of America as just.

However, the person who uses certain drugs recreationally, drives over some randomly selected speed, or walks around without clothing has objectively not sinned by Biblical standards (Deuteronomy 4:2).  Conservative Christians are far indeed from the rationality and righteousness they so stupidly think they possess.  Liberal Christians, in contrast, are stupid enough to think that in the context of Christianity, human preferences can be valid and God's moral nature is not, as they almost exclusively think the actual commands of the Bible are evil (the crimes and punishments of Mosaic Law are very disturbing to many of them) and that their subjective consciences have any sort of epistemological significance in revealing moral obligations.  They would likely think that a criminal under Mosaic Law does not deserve what Yahweh commanded to be the penalty.

This is how conservative and liberal Christians misunderstand criminals.  Both might claim they care about justice, but just as they thoroughly misunderstand even the most basic but still deep aspects of things like sexism and racism, sometimes in inverse ways, they neither understand the true nature of crime nor are even consistent with their own supposed longing for justice.  If they did truly want what they do often claim and think they do, they would not wallow in assumptions, ideological contradictions, and behaviors hypocrisies; they would not believe the aforementioned things about Christian theology or general philosophy that they repeatedly say they do.  They would care so much about truth and justice that even a single assumption or error would never be made by them except perhaps with only the most random exceptions, and they would rather realize they know nothing about morality from human laws, social customs, personal preferences, or emotions, even the emotions that together form conscience than for one moment pretend like personal or cultural factors have anything to do with whether morality even exists.