5 ms·

> you must either quit Most people don't have that flexibility. > chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of what it means fo

> you must either quit Most people don't have that flexibility. > chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in a crime I think the author chose an example from their own experience. Just because it seems ridiculous, doesn't change its accuracy. I think it is quite relevant because it gets past the people who "can't believe that such a thing would happen to them".

tptacek 9y ago
It doesn't matter what kind of flexibility you have. Poor people also can't steal cars --- and virtually none of them do. An argument could be made (probably only on a message board) that between being forced into petty theft and forced to be a cog in a criminal conspiracy, the petty theft option is more justifiable --- all the proceeds address a real need, and the action itself is "honest" about the tradeoff being made. But we have no trouble recognizing theft as theft, even when done out of economic necessity.
- fjdlwlv 9y ago
  Still, you must ask yourself, what does it mean to criminalize theft when huge segments of the population either does it, or has the privile of not needing it, or is an supposedly unwitting beneficiary. If I indirectly aid a possibly criminal act to feed my family, why are my spouse and children more innocent than someone who lacks a criminal benefactor?
  - Mathnerd314 9y ago
    Theft from grocery stores, while technically illegal, is a rather light shade of crime. Some police will just pay for the groceries: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/officer-buys-eggs-for-gma-caught-stealing_n_6310630.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/officer-buys-eggs-f... At least as reported, petty theft seems quite rare; poor people qualify for food stamps, food banks, etc., or just beg/panhandle for money, so there aren't many cases. This profile of them suggests most shoplifters do it more for the thrill than any kind of necessity: http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-resource-center/statistics/ http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-res...
- pm24601 9y ago
  This is an argument fallacy. Conflation of: actively committing a crime ("stealing cars") v. passively committing a crime (failing to do something or looking the other way) Also ignoring intent, People don't unintentionally steal a car. People can unintentionally fill out a form or misunderstand or be unaware of the requirements of the law. Additionally, theft is ingrained into the fabric of society and religion. Following some sort of government reporting requirement is not included in any religious teaching that I am aware of.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    No, you're misunderstanding the example. The issue isn't "looking the other way". I am not arguing that someone is or should be criminally culpable for doing workmanlike work at, e.g., administering benefits at a health management organization they happen to know is corrupt. I am talking instead about a situation where an employee knows the organization is corrupt, and then knowingly and actively participates in some of those criminal actions. You can't deliver vouchers you know to be fraudulent. If you do, you are and should be criminally liable. Large-scale organized fraud depends in part on the willingness of every cog in the organization to perpetuate the criminal enterprise.
jacquesm 9y ago
> Most people don't have that flexibility. Most people really don't have the flexibility to not quit. See, if you don't then you could easily end up in the kind of trouble that will cause your life to go right off the good path and onto a terrible one. Keep in mind that simply committing one crime makes you more likely to commit others just because you are now vulnerable. That tactic has caused many smart and otherwise good people to lose their bearings.
- Retra 9y ago
  I don't think it's quite fair to suggest people use their flexibility to commit crimes rather than avoid them. I'd rather assume that people don't have the foresight to analyze risks properly (especially in the face of the unknown.) Because at the end of the day, you know you can probably get away with institutional crime quite easily, but not with petty theft. And most people know what the consequences of the latter are, but not so for the former.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > I don't think it's quite fair to suggest people use their flexibility to commit crimes rather than avoid them. I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it.
ams6110 9y ago
A person who feels that they don't have the flexibility to quit is also probably a person who doesn't have the resources to hire an attorney to consult with and represent them at an interview (something that could easily cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars). Public defenders are not available for this sort of thing.
- pm24601 9y ago
  > A person who feels that they don't have the flexibility to quit I am NOT saying "feels" - I am saying "they do NOT have the flexibility to quit". For example, my sister and her husband do not have that flexibility. They are at the limit of what their "barely above minimum wage" jobs support. They have some savings and they are very good about managing their resources; however they are a job loss or injury away from going negative and both work in jobs that are physically demanding.

tptacek 9y ago

It doesn't matter what kind of flexibility you have. Poor people also can't steal cars --- and virtually none of them do. An argument could be made (probably only on a message board) that between being forced into petty theft and forced to be a cog in a criminal conspiracy, the petty theft option is more justifiable --- all the proceeds address a real need, and the action itself is "honest" about the tradeoff being made. But we have no trouble recognizing theft as theft, even when done out of economic necessity.

fjdlwlv 9y ago
Still, you must ask yourself, what does it mean to criminalize theft when huge segments of the population either does it, or has the privile of not needing it, or is an supposedly unwitting beneficiary. If I indirectly aid a possibly criminal act to feed my family, why are my spouse and children more innocent than someone who lacks a criminal benefactor?
- Mathnerd314 9y ago
  Theft from grocery stores, while technically illegal, is a rather light shade of crime. Some police will just pay for the groceries: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/officer-buys-eggs-for-gma-caught-stealing_n_6310630.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/officer-buys-eggs-f... At least as reported, petty theft seems quite rare; poor people qualify for food stamps, food banks, etc., or just beg/panhandle for money, so there aren't many cases. This profile of them suggests most shoplifters do it more for the thrill than any kind of necessity: http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-resource-center/statistics/ http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-res...
pm24601 9y ago
This is an argument fallacy. Conflation of: actively committing a crime ("stealing cars") v. passively committing a crime (failing to do something or looking the other way) Also ignoring intent, People don't unintentionally steal a car. People can unintentionally fill out a form or misunderstand or be unaware of the requirements of the law. Additionally, theft is ingrained into the fabric of society and religion. Following some sort of government reporting requirement is not included in any religious teaching that I am aware of.
- tptacek 9y ago
  No, you're misunderstanding the example. The issue isn't "looking the other way". I am not arguing that someone is or should be criminally culpable for doing workmanlike work at, e.g., administering benefits at a health management organization they happen to know is corrupt. I am talking instead about a situation where an employee knows the organization is corrupt, and then knowingly and actively participates in some of those criminal actions. You can't deliver vouchers you know to be fraudulent. If you do, you are and should be criminally liable. Large-scale organized fraud depends in part on the willingness of every cog in the organization to perpetuate the criminal enterprise.

jacquesm 9y ago

> Most people don't have that flexibility. Most people really don't have the flexibility to not quit. See, if you don't then you could easily end up in the kind of trouble that will cause your life to go right off the good path and onto a terrible one. Keep in mind that simply committing one crime makes you more likely to commit others just because you are now vulnerable. That tactic has caused many smart and otherwise good people to lose their bearings.

Retra 9y ago
I don't think it's quite fair to suggest people use their flexibility to commit crimes rather than avoid them. I'd rather assume that people don't have the foresight to analyze risks properly (especially in the face of the unknown.) Because at the end of the day, you know you can probably get away with institutional crime quite easily, but not with petty theft. And most people know what the consequences of the latter are, but not so for the former.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > I don't think it's quite fair to suggest people use their flexibility to commit crimes rather than avoid them. I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it.

ams6110 9y ago

A person who feels that they don't have the flexibility to quit is also probably a person who doesn't have the resources to hire an attorney to consult with and represent them at an interview (something that could easily cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars). Public defenders are not available for this sort of thing.

pm24601 9y ago
> A person who feels that they don't have the flexibility to quit I am NOT saying "feels" - I am saying "they do NOT have the flexibility to quit". For example, my sister and her husband do not have that flexibility. They are at the limit of what their "barely above minimum wage" jobs support. They have some savings and they are very good about managing their resources; however they are a job loss or injury away from going negative and both work in jobs that are physically demanding.