3 ms·

from the article >>Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote. What about the loss sustain

by tmptmp 10y ago

from the article >>Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote. What about the loss sustained by the owner? Or perhaps if the "not-so-rich clerk" at the supermarket was in charge of the goods and had to pay for the losses? Whose going to give that "not-so-rich clerk" the lost money? Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food" then what? I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy based society.

pyrale 10y ago
Maybe we can care about this problem the day it actually happens, much like we would do if we were coding ?
- tmptmp 10y ago
  The problem has already occurred, at least for the owner who lost the goods.
vidarh 10y ago
> I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy based society. I find that an utterly ludicrous claim given that the court was applying the law, and that parliament is free to change the law if they believe it is being misinterpreted. Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would. > Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food" then what? Then society would need to decide whether to deal with that by tightening up this law, or find other ways of treating the poor with some degree of dignity. Consider such laws a recognition that life has greater value than property, and an incentive to ensure society keeps that in mind when deciding how to structure itself.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>"life has greater value than property"... This I agree. In fact, I am of the strong opinion that there should be very hard limits set on the ownership of certain types of properties (e.g. land, water, food). No one should be allowed to own any of such properties beyond a certain limit. [1] But once a person who owns whatever is allowed by the laws, then the law should protect the ownership of that person of that property and in case any person (needy or not-so-needy) steals such a property of other person, the law must not then take a populist u-turn to tell us grandiose sounding principles like "life has greater value than property". If the judge wants to show he/she is so "humane", he/she should pay for the loss of the owner and allow the "needy" poor to keep the food. Some other better ways the judge could have taken: The judge could have ordered the officials overseeing the welfare matters and could have ordered them to compensate for the losses sustained by the owner. In fact, the judge had a very good opportunity to bring to the notice of that poor hungry person some of the welfare schemes that are set in place by the society. But saying that a theft, which has caused damage to other law abiding citizen, is not a crime is not only ludicrous but is also dangerous. >>Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would. I am not against the society helping the needy people to survive but there are other "not-so-antithetical-to-democracy" ways of helping the needy people than just ignoring the thefts carried out by the needy people. What was wrong on the part of the owner? Why he/she was punished? These are some very important issues here. We must not fall prey to sentiments like "thefts of food by poor hungry is okay and anyway the shop owner is always that dirty-rich person who needs to be punished". [1] Note about private property: please note that I am not saying/suggesting that we should embrace the communist style anti-people tyrannical systems which prohibit "most"* people from owing any private property. Of course, the communists allow only the "more equal people" [2] (e.g. party chairman and his cronies in polit-bureau and few of their cronies in turn) to own almost all of the property. The "party-people" are allowed to have as much fun as they want and at whatever troubles such fun-acts of the party-people cause to other "less equal" people, the communists just ignore. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

by tmptmp 10y ago

pyrale 10y ago

Maybe we can care about this problem the day it actually happens, much like we would do if we were coding ?

tmptmp 10y ago
The problem has already occurred, at least for the owner who lost the goods.

vidarh 10y ago

> I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy based society. I find that an utterly ludicrous claim given that the court was applying the law, and that parliament is free to change the law if they believe it is being misinterpreted. Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would. > Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food" then what? Then society would need to decide whether to deal with that by tightening up this law, or find other ways of treating the poor with some degree of dignity. Consider such laws a recognition that life has greater value than property, and an incentive to ensure society keeps that in mind when deciding how to structure itself.

tmptmp 10y ago
>>"life has greater value than property"... This I agree. In fact, I am of the strong opinion that there should be very hard limits set on the ownership of certain types of properties (e.g. land, water, food). No one should be allowed to own any of such properties beyond a certain limit. [1] But once a person who owns whatever is allowed by the laws, then the law should protect the ownership of that person of that property and in case any person (needy or not-so-needy) steals such a property of other person, the law must not then take a populist u-turn to tell us grandiose sounding principles like "life has greater value than property". If the judge wants to show he/she is so "humane", he/she should pay for the loss of the owner and allow the "needy" poor to keep the food. Some other better ways the judge could have taken: The judge could have ordered the officials overseeing the welfare matters and could have ordered them to compensate for the losses sustained by the owner. In fact, the judge had a very good opportunity to bring to the notice of that poor hungry person some of the welfare schemes that are set in place by the society. But saying that a theft, which has caused damage to other law abiding citizen, is not a crime is not only ludicrous but is also dangerous. >>Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would. I am not against the society helping the needy people to survive but there are other "not-so-antithetical-to-democracy" ways of helping the needy people than just ignoring the thefts carried out by the needy people. What was wrong on the part of the owner? Why he/she was punished? These are some very important issues here. We must not fall prey to sentiments like "thefts of food by poor hungry is okay and anyway the shop owner is always that dirty-rich person who needs to be punished". [1] Note about private property: please note that I am not saying/suggesting that we should embrace the communist style anti-people tyrannical systems which prohibit "most"* people from owing any private property. Of course, the communists allow only the "more equal people" [2] (e.g. party chairman and his cronies in polit-bureau and few of their cronies in turn) to own almost all of the property. The "party-people" are allowed to have as much fun as they want and at whatever troubles such fun-acts of the party-people cause to other "less equal" people, the communists just ignore. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm