|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 04, 2009 05:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok you are the judge of a trial. The defendant has stolen some food to feed his children. You know nothing of his past, only that he has stolen some food. What punishment do you give?
None at all. It's hand to mouth stealing and not to be punished (if the thief is indeed without means and the children are starving). The law knows this and doesn't punish in this case.
Quote:
Responsibility..how many excuses do you make in a given day? You were late because of traffic (why did you not start earlier?), you didn't get something done on time because? You did something incorrect because: Wrong information, 'it has always been done this way', you were never showed how to do it? Think about this before you answer it.
None. I don't make excuses. I've either a good reason or not, and if I don't I take responsibility. Not much of a problem, actually, at least not for me.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 09:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok you are the judge of a trial. The defendant has stolen some food to feed his children. You know nothing of his past, only that he has stolen some food. What punishment do you give?
Responsibility..how many excuses do you make in a given day? You were late because of traffic (why did you not start earlier?), you didn't get something done on time because? You did something incorrect because: Wrong information, 'it has always been done this way', you were never showed how to do it? Think about this before you answer it.
There are no victimless crimes. Perhaps the children of the person he stole from had to go hungry that day. It is a fact that a person can go without food for quite some time without dying. So yes, I would punish him according to what the law allows. A small theft typically does not carry much of a punishment in most countries.
I try to not make excuses. I take responsibility for my actions. If something expected occurs then I will explain it if it is important otherwise I'll just say "sorry."
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 10:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There are no victimless crimes. Perhaps the children of the person he stole from had to go hungry that day. It is a fact that a person can go without food for quite some time without dying. So yes, I would punish him according to what the law allows.
How do you know this was the first day without food? Maybe the baby suffered 5 days already?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 02:34 PM |
|
|
I would punish him anyway. It's wrong to steal, no matter the circumstances.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 03:20 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 15:25, 07 May 2009.
|
Quote:
I would punish him anyway. It's wrong to steal, no matter the circumstances.
I'm glad you'r not part of any government 
But I give you a different example:
A person gets hit by a car, and is badly hurt. She needs bandage and something to clean the wounds very fast. You do not have a cell phone to call the emergency. 30 feet away you see a car parking at the street. As you can see, it has a First-Aid kit laying on the back. To help the victim, you crash the window and take the kit. You probably saved the life of that victim.
Later on, you get punished by the court:
You have damaged a car which wasn't yours, and you have stolen something. 6 months jail!!
How is that?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would punish him anyway. It's wrong to steal, no matter the circumstances.
It's the same issue as with the hate crime. The motive doesn't really matter. If you start making exceptions to the law because of this or that circumstance, not only have you overcomplicated the law, but you've started down a slippery slope. If you allow a person to steal because he hasn't eaten in 5 days, do you allow him to steal at 4 days? 3 days? 3 hours? Draw a line and justify it logically; if you can't, it's not a good law.
The fact of the matter is if you steal food from someone else, you've taken their property. That's illegal. If you're starving and you steal someone else's food, how do you know that you're not going to make them go hungry? If people are starving, there are other, better ways for a government to solve that problem than to look the other way when a crime occurs.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 06:04 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:07, 07 May 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
There are no victimless crimes. Perhaps the children of the person he stole from had to go hungry that day. It is a fact that a person can go without food for quite some time without dying. So yes, I would punish him according to what the law allows.
How do you know this was the first day without food? Maybe the baby suffered 5 days already?
I have fasted for 7 days and did not die. Some have fasted for 40 days. After 3 days of no food the hunger pangs will pretty much go away.
From a practical standpoint in western countries there are social programs to help poor people so there would be no reason to steal to eat. And three is option to beg for food if there is no social program available in another country. Or hunt. One can go to a church and ask for food and find help there.
Also, everyone has friends and family. Surely they would help you. If you are a jerk and alienate everyone around you that is your own fault.
If you steal from me you are taking food out of my mouth or that mouth of my childen perhaps. Or maybe you think to steal from me a little every day. And several others think to do the same. My small business was operating on a small profit margin. Now because of your theft I go out of business and my children go hungry.
I do not mean to be unsympathetic to those who need food. But ther are honest ways to get food.
In you instance of breaking into a car to get a first aid kit I do not think the owner of the car would prosecute you but if he did, that is his right to do so.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In you instance of breaking into a car to get a first aid kit I do not think the owner of the car would prosecute you but if he did, that is his right to do so.
Nice way to NOT answer my question
It was not the question if the car owner reacts in any way. Maybe you re-read my example again.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
In you instance of breaking into a car to get a first aid kit I do not think the owner of the car would prosecute you but if he did, that is his right to do so.
Nice way to NOT answer my question
It was not the question if the car owner reacts in any way. Maybe you re-read my example again.
I am not sure how I did not answer your question.
Quote:
A person gets hit by a car, and is badly hurt. She needs bandage and something to clean the wounds very fast. You do not have a cell phone to call the emergency. 30 feet away you see a car parking at the street. As you can see, it has a First-Aid kit laying on the back. To help the victim, you crash the window and take the kit. You probably saved the life of that victim.
Later on, you get punished by the court:
You have damaged a car which wasn't yours, and you have stolen something. 6 months jail!!
How is that?
I would do the same thing as the person in question. I would break into the car to get the First-Aid kit to try to save the accident victim. If I get punished by the court, I get punished.
I think that police will not press charges against an individual unless the person who was wronged presses charges. If for some reason the owner presses charges for me breaking into the car then I am willing to pay for the consequences of my actions. I would be suprised at 6 months in jail for a first offense of breaking a window and using part of a first aid kit.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted May 07, 2009 07:14 PM |
|
|
Do you hit your dog?
Then how can you hit a child?
Regarding to the theft, yes she should be responsible for paying for what she stole.
And the one whose life was saved by the first aid kit should be responsible for the car's damages. Or the state should pay for it. (but that's not always so.)
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And the one whose life was saved by the first aid kit should be responsible for the car's damages.
Are you joking? That's like FORCING charges on them for something they didn't even DO.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 07, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have damaged a car which wasn't yours, and you have stolen something. 6 months jail!!
How is that?
I'm not much of a fan of act utilitarianism. I prefer rule utilitarianism myself. Act utilitarianism is much too open to abuse.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 11:40 AM |
|
|
Ok, now for some really really hot topics. Not for the squimish.
Lets talk about some legal defense tactics. Lets start with a personal favorite of mine..bringing the victims past into it. Especially with rape cases. Lets take a 'street walker'. Does it matter if a victim of a rape was a prostitute? No is no...right?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 01:24 PM |
|
|
If you steal a car from a (used) car dealer, is it any different than stealing a car from any random person?
If you force said dealer to give (or even sell) you a car, is that any different than forcing any random person to do so?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 03:52 PM |
|
|
Has every american soldier get to judged by the court because he was part of a group which killed civilists in iraq/afghanistan (colleteral damage so to say...)?
Murder is murder I heard......
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 03:59 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 16:02, 11 May 2009.
|
Pardon me for being nitpicking but while "murder is murder" is certainly true (captain obvious!), the unintentional killing of civilians would theoreticaly be closer to manslaughter than to "murder" by definition of law (I hope Omega will never get to read this post...).
Murder needs the intention to kill. Apart from that we have the very special situation that we are talking about soldiers, who aren't even murderers eventhough they do intentionaly kill an enemy. The topic is a bit more complex than
Quote:
Murder is murder I heard......
in this case.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 04:04 PM |
|
|
I disagree.
If someone tells me "a thief is a thief" by law, then "a murder is a murder" by law. No excuses they said, "or you would make the law too complicated".
Just read back this thread......
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 04:05 PM |
|
|
Murder is clearly defined and for that the intent is necessary.
If, in fact, an intent is proven to kill or harm civilians, than those soldiers ARE judged by a court - that has happened quite often.
If it's "collateral damage" it's a consequence of the fact that there is a war fought, and for that the common soldier is not to blame.
Quote:
If someone tells me "a thief is a thief"...
I didn't. I asked whether it makes any difference whether you steal a good from a dealer of said good or from a random person.
Edit: Oh, you are still back at the old issue? Never mind.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 04:14 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 16:14, 11 May 2009.
|
I wasn't talking about you JJ, I was refering to the following statement of Mvass:
Quote:
I would punish him anyway. It's wrong to steal, no matter the circumstances.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 11, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 18:02, 11 May 2009.
|
Quote:
If, in fact, an intent is proven to kill or harm civilians, than those soldiers ARE judged by a court
But of course.
Nuclear - and any other - bombings aside (I'm sure those had no intention whatsoever of harming the civilian populace), I'd like to mention My Lai.
14 officers accused, only one convicted and then released by Nixon.
He went to jail for a total of four and a half months.
One person went to jail for 4 and a half months... for 350-500 slaughtered civilians. Fair enough, eh?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
