Attitudes to theft

(see first post) The thief's sentence or penalty should be reduced if:

  • The man's wallet was easily assessible because of his clothing.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man had given money freely to many other people in the past.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man was drunk at the time, and not careful with his wallet.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • The man at no time said he did not want his wallet stolen.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man previously told the thief that he might give him some money.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man was friendly with the thief prior to the theft.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man was married to the thief.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • The man had given money to the thief on a previous occasion.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • The man had a repuation for giving his money away.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • None of the above.

    Votes: 13 72.2%
  • Total voters
    18
James R said:
To the people who have ticked some of the options, think about if you were the victim of this theft. Would you really agree to a lighter penalty for the thief in the circumstances you have indicated?

For example, if you weren't careful with your wallet, you think the pickpocket should not be convicted of the theft?
Click to expand...

As I have selected The man/woman was married to the thief
, I have explained why I believe such case is ok for the theft to be dropped or proceded...in the above replies I posted.
 
James, if I were drunk and gave my wallet to someone, that wouldn't be theft...
Click to expand...

No?

You give your wallet to a friend when you're drunk and he removes $100 without telling you. The next day, you find out. Theft?

You give your wallet to a stranger to "hold" when you're drunk. He takes it and you never see him again. Theft?

You'd really say "no" in both cases?
 
Definitely. You're fucking stupid if you give your wallet to a total stranger at all.
 
James:
No?

You give your wallet to a friend when you're drunk and he removes $100 without telling you. The next day, you find out. Theft?

You give your wallet to a stranger to "hold" when you're drunk. He takes it and you never see him again. Theft?

You'd really say "no" in both cases?
Click to expand...
By 'give', I meant letting him permanently keep the wallet.

If I'm drunk and give a wallet to someone, saying 'Here, keep this', and the man does so, he has not committed theft.
 
Oniw17:

Obviously, further conversation with you is going to be a complete waste of my time, so I'll stop here.

You say, essentially, that if somebody came and set fire to your house, you wouldn't call the fire brigade or the police. Instead, you'd handle the whole thing personally. You'd put the fire out yourself, then you'd get your gun and go on a vigilante rampage to hunt down the arsonist.

I think you're out of touch with the real world. Pandering to your mental problems is not something I want to devote time to.

Goodbye.


dragon:

You seem to have personal issues with me. I am willing to discuss these with you by PM, if you wish.

In addition, you obviously have deep-seated problems with women. I will be the second to advise you to seek professional help with those.

---

For the remainder of this thread, I will restrict myself to responding to the more sane and thoughtful members of sciforums.
 
mountainhare:

Suppose you're blind drunk and I shove a contract in front of you, by which you agree to pay me $1000 in return for, say, me taking a photo of you and sending it to you by email.

Being drunk, like with giving your wallet to a stranger, you sign on the dotted line, not really knowing what you're doing.

Should I be able to hold you to the contract, in your opinion?

If not, how does this differ from somebody taking advantage of your drunkedness to take your wallet?
 
James R said:
Oniw17:

Obviously, further conversation with you is going to be a complete waste of my time, so I'll stop here.

You say, essentially, that if somebody came and set fire to your house, you wouldn't call the fire brigade or the police. Instead, you'd handle the whole thing personally. You'd put the fire out yourself, then you'd get your gun and go on a vigilante rampage to hunt down the arsonist.

I think you're out of touch with the real world. Pandering to your mental problems is not something I want to devote time to.

Goodbye.
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort in regards to arson. Theft isn't a crime IMO, so there's a difference, armed robbery on the other hand...
 
James R said:
dragon:

You seem to have personal issues with me. I am willing to discuss these with you by PM, if you wish.

In addition, you obviously have deep-seated problems with women. I will be the second to advise you to seek professional help with those.

---

For the remainder of this thread, I will restrict myself to responding to the more sane and thoughtful members of sciforums.
Click to expand...

Oh so now I am not sane for not believing in what you believe in? so you now ignore me for not believing in what you believe in, telling me to seek professional help since I supposevly have deep-seated problems with women. Yes perhaps I will seek professional help but that does not make me insane. And no I do not have issues with you, you just a moderator who clearly abuses his powers, as I am deeply tramatized by your removal of that picture.
 
That's not theft. Explain to me how theft can physically harm anyone, and how it can be anyone else's fault if you get something stolen off of you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top