6 ms·

>You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machi

>You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machine that costs 5,000 euros. Your feel good ruling told all the drug addicts they could smash it for the snacks inside. You arrest them and whether or not you convict them doesn't matter to me because I'm out 5,000 euros now and the government isn't going to reimburse me. I can't sue them because they have no assets. So yes, there are social consequences here that are not address by the court system.

peterwwillis 11y ago
Stealing food and destruction of private property are wildly different charges. And hopefully if you were a businessman you'd be smart enough to have insurance....
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Insurance premiums go up ask risk goes up. This will increase risk. Now the vending business isn't profitable, I lose my means of making a living, and now what? Just join everyone in stealing? There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. There's no hollywood style theft where you just steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, etc.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    Risk will not go up, because vending machines will not be smashed, because they would go to jail for even longer than for just stealing food. I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.
    - talmand 11y ago
      Risk for the owner's business does go up, because the pricing has to be adjusted to offset the theft; which affects everybody. Since theft is legal under this definition that means risk for the owner has gone way up now. Eventually insurance would not cover theft because there's little recourse to prevent it. Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.
      - peterwwillis 11y ago
        Pricing won't go up because theft won't go up. Think through this whole process the way the judge did. So now a homeless guy reads "Food is free if you're hungry!". He goes... really?? Walks into store. Right away, the store security is eyeballing him, because he's homeless, and the store owner reads the news, too. So now the homeless guy has a decision: since he's being watched even closer now, does he give up early, or make a brazen attempt? He makes the attempt... now the security catches him. "I'm hungry!" he says. "Too bad", security says. They take the food back and call the cops. One court case later, the guy is released. The store still has their goods. There is plenty of recourse to cover theft (that which already exists and resulted in the guy getting caught the first time), food is not free, insurance doesn't go up. And pricing is already adjusted to offset theft, like I mentioned in another thread. The effect on the bottom-line for markets is nearly zero. Everything is the same as before this judgement, except the prison isn't full of homeless people who can't pay their fines. Like someone else mentioned, either homeless people will be banned from stores, or they will be scrutinized more, and outdoor markets may retain some new form of controls or increased security. Or their culture will simply adapt to this new way of life, since not every person who can steal will steal (a weird idea for the US, but many foreign cultures work this way). But there will not be roving gangs of hungry homeless trampling children and busting down stores. Business will not decline from the ravages of the hungry. And in a weird twist of the judgment, if they stole to have food, they'd no longer be hungry, and therefore would be committing crimes again. The judgement's language is very specific about the nature in which this took place and what it means.
        talmand 11y ago

peterwwillis 11y ago

Stealing food and destruction of private property are wildly different charges. And hopefully if you were a businessman you'd be smart enough to have insurance....

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Insurance premiums go up ask risk goes up. This will increase risk. Now the vending business isn't profitable, I lose my means of making a living, and now what? Just join everyone in stealing? There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. There's no hollywood style theft where you just steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, etc.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  Risk will not go up, because vending machines will not be smashed, because they would go to jail for even longer than for just stealing food. I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Risk for the owner's business does go up, because the pricing has to be adjusted to offset the theft; which affects everybody. Since theft is legal under this definition that means risk for the owner has gone way up now. Eventually insurance would not cover theft because there's little recourse to prevent it. Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.
    - peterwwillis 11y ago
      Pricing won't go up because theft won't go up. Think through this whole process the way the judge did. So now a homeless guy reads "Food is free if you're hungry!". He goes... really?? Walks into store. Right away, the store security is eyeballing him, because he's homeless, and the store owner reads the news, too. So now the homeless guy has a decision: since he's being watched even closer now, does he give up early, or make a brazen attempt? He makes the attempt... now the security catches him. "I'm hungry!" he says. "Too bad", security says. They take the food back and call the cops. One court case later, the guy is released. The store still has their goods. There is plenty of recourse to cover theft (that which already exists and resulted in the guy getting caught the first time), food is not free, insurance doesn't go up. And pricing is already adjusted to offset theft, like I mentioned in another thread. The effect on the bottom-line for markets is nearly zero. Everything is the same as before this judgement, except the prison isn't full of homeless people who can't pay their fines. Like someone else mentioned, either homeless people will be banned from stores, or they will be scrutinized more, and outdoor markets may retain some new form of controls or increased security. Or their culture will simply adapt to this new way of life, since not every person who can steal will steal (a weird idea for the US, but many foreign cultures work this way). But there will not be roving gangs of hungry homeless trampling children and busting down stores. Business will not decline from the ravages of the hungry. And in a weird twist of the judgment, if they stole to have food, they'd no longer be hungry, and therefore would be committing crimes again. The judgement's language is very specific about the nature in which this took place and what it means.
      - talmand 11y ago