5 ms·

I know HN etiquette dictates that my comment should add something to the conversation, otherwise a simple upvote will suffice, but I have nothing to add: I just

I know HN etiquette dictates that my comment should add something to the conversation, otherwise a simple upvote will suffice, but I have nothing to add: I just wanted to state that this story is awesome. OK, maybe a few things to add. Snarks would point out that this was overkill, that insurance would have covered most of it (most of it was recovered anyway) and self-sleuthing can lead to dangerous situations. But as someone who's had their house robbed several times, a modern tale of vengeance well-told is much appreciated.

davidw 16y ago
In considering the benefits of what she did, you also have to take into account the crimes this guy will not commit while in jail.
- furyg3 16y ago
  Unfortunately, that doesn't really counteract the new skills he will learn while in jail. :/
  - davidw 16y ago
    So we should just let him romp around, stealing what he feels like? I'm all for improving jails (and not filling them with people busted for drugs), but this guy sounds like he ought to be spending some time in a facility where he is not at liberty to steal people's things, however it's run. Like others have noted, he was already on probation for some other crime, which is likely what got him locked up, not simply stealing the GPS.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Distinguishing those cases is the trick, I suppose. Especially for first-time offenders, there are people who might be deterred from future offenses by being put on probation, once they've realized that they got caught and had better knock it off, who would instead turn into more hardened criminals if they're put in jail (and, with the current state of U.S. jails, likely end up joining a prison gang). But there are other people who have to physically be restrained from committing more crimes. The current common sentence lengths don't seem that useful to me, though. Sentences like 6-36 months are just about the worst I can think of, keeping someone in jail just long enough to inculcate all the negative effects, while not actually keeping them off the streets that long. It creates this odd revolving-door mentality, where in some communities it's completely common to be in and out of prison, and everyone's got a bunch of criminals in their social circle. Now we could just lock all those same people up for 20+ years and not let them back out of prison to reoffend, but that seems like a problematic solution as well, given the current numbers (you'd have to be prepared to permanently lock up a large proportion of the population). One start might be to start basing policy on empirical data. Can we find patterns in which kinds of policies have deterrent or anti-deterrent effects on which kinds of people? My impression is that laws and sentencing are not very strong based on empirical research currently. It does occasionally get brought up in debates, but the stuff written into the laws seems mostly pulled out of a hat.
      - zaphar 16y ago
        I've always thought that a policy of repayment would be both the fairest and most deterrent policy. Jail time should be dependent not on time spent but on time to repayment. Theft should be considered a debt. Repayment of that debt should be worked off. If thieves could count on having to do real work to repay debt that would both reduce the incentive to steal and possibly reduce sentence lengths for some cases. Spend several months working off a debt for a petty theft and room and board at the prison and that job at McDonalds starts looking a little better. Maybe even that GED. The goal should be lower incentives for theft, raise incentives for real work and a clear demonstration to the thieves that their sentence is tied to the value of the stolen item. This obviously doesn't apply in cases of physical violence or murder but for the cases you seem to be focusing on in your discussion I think it's superior to straight time based term.
        JeffL 16y ago
        I do like the idea of repayment, but in practice, can most people in jails really earn any money with which to repay? Seems like there aren't that many unskilled jobs around anymore, especially ones that can take place inside of jail.
        zaphar 16y ago
        Just because there aren't now doesn't mean there can't be. Even if it's make work it might still fill the bill.
retube 16y ago
> Snarks would point out that this was overkill, that insurance would have covered most of it (most of it was recovered anyway) and self-sleuthing can lead to dangerous situations. Possibly true. But nothing is as cathartic as personally tracking down the person that wronged you.
- TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
  What are you going to do? Kill them? Maim them? Bring it out in blood equity? Or some sort of "bringing them to justice?" Its just stuff. You never know what the motivations they had for doing it. It could have done all sorts of good, at a cost of some personal sacrifice. Is it wrong? Society says so. But personal "justice" is just as extreme. And yes, I have had things stolen from me.
  - trustfundbaby 16y ago
    > What are you going to do? Kill them? Maim them? Bring it out in blood equity? Or some sort of "bringing them to justice?" Its almost like you didn't read the story or something.
  - carussell 16y ago
    You never know what the motivations they had for doing it. It could have done all sorts of good, at a cost of some personal sacrifice. Or the person could be serial thief relying on the stolen goods to avoid work and with an aptitude to participate in other criminal activities. Just like he was.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    So you are saying it is OK to steal from me if your motives are pure? That's BS. Expecting people to obey the law is not "personal justice", it is just justice.
jlgosse 16y ago
I'm not totally knowledgable about insurance, but I'm pretty sure if you leave the car door unlocked (or apartment door for that matter), insurance doesn't cover the theft. There needs to be some sort of forced entry, as far as I remember.
- brc 16y ago
  I left my car unlocked and accidentally left the garage door up. I lost the stereo from the car, and suffered a lot of console damage as well. I had two surfboards, some tools and a set of CD's stolen. It was all completely my fault for bumping the garage door remote (I now leave it in the car, always). The insurance company paid up, both for the household items taken, and the car insurance for the stolen stereo and damaged interior. In fact, with the new-for-old policy, I got replacements on some old stuff with nice new items. The takeaway is : check your policy. You want to insure against loss and stupidity.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    If you lived in a bad enough neighborhood and had an insurance policy like that, "accidentally" leaving your doors unlocked would be a cheap and easy insurance fraud--which is why some insurers are reluctant to cover people in that situation.
    - brc 16y ago
      Well I always live in good neighbourhoods, so I guess the insurers don't mind in my case. My current policy also covers theft of items stored outside the house - bikes, ladders, furniture, etc. Sometimes it's not always cheaper to live in bad areas, when you add up the total cost of living.

davidw 16y ago

In considering the benefits of what she did, you also have to take into account the crimes this guy will not commit while in jail.

furyg3 16y ago
Unfortunately, that doesn't really counteract the new skills he will learn while in jail. :/
- davidw 16y ago
  So we should just let him romp around, stealing what he feels like? I'm all for improving jails (and not filling them with people busted for drugs), but this guy sounds like he ought to be spending some time in a facility where he is not at liberty to steal people's things, however it's run. Like others have noted, he was already on probation for some other crime, which is likely what got him locked up, not simply stealing the GPS.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Distinguishing those cases is the trick, I suppose. Especially for first-time offenders, there are people who might be deterred from future offenses by being put on probation, once they've realized that they got caught and had better knock it off, who would instead turn into more hardened criminals if they're put in jail (and, with the current state of U.S. jails, likely end up joining a prison gang). But there are other people who have to physically be restrained from committing more crimes. The current common sentence lengths don't seem that useful to me, though. Sentences like 6-36 months are just about the worst I can think of, keeping someone in jail just long enough to inculcate all the negative effects, while not actually keeping them off the streets that long. It creates this odd revolving-door mentality, where in some communities it's completely common to be in and out of prison, and everyone's got a bunch of criminals in their social circle. Now we could just lock all those same people up for 20+ years and not let them back out of prison to reoffend, but that seems like a problematic solution as well, given the current numbers (you'd have to be prepared to permanently lock up a large proportion of the population). One start might be to start basing policy on empirical data. Can we find patterns in which kinds of policies have deterrent or anti-deterrent effects on which kinds of people? My impression is that laws and sentencing are not very strong based on empirical research currently. It does occasionally get brought up in debates, but the stuff written into the laws seems mostly pulled out of a hat.
    - zaphar 16y ago
      I've always thought that a policy of repayment would be both the fairest and most deterrent policy. Jail time should be dependent not on time spent but on time to repayment. Theft should be considered a debt. Repayment of that debt should be worked off. If thieves could count on having to do real work to repay debt that would both reduce the incentive to steal and possibly reduce sentence lengths for some cases. Spend several months working off a debt for a petty theft and room and board at the prison and that job at McDonalds starts looking a little better. Maybe even that GED. The goal should be lower incentives for theft, raise incentives for real work and a clear demonstration to the thieves that their sentence is tied to the value of the stolen item. This obviously doesn't apply in cases of physical violence or murder but for the cases you seem to be focusing on in your discussion I think it's superior to straight time based term.
      - JeffL 16y ago
        I do like the idea of repayment, but in practice, can most people in jails really earn any money with which to repay? Seems like there aren't that many unskilled jobs around anymore, especially ones that can take place inside of jail.
        zaphar 16y ago
        Just because there aren't now doesn't mean there can't be. Even if it's make work it might still fill the bill.

retube 16y ago

> Snarks would point out that this was overkill, that insurance would have covered most of it (most of it was recovered anyway) and self-sleuthing can lead to dangerous situations. Possibly true. But nothing is as cathartic as personally tracking down the person that wronged you.

TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
What are you going to do? Kill them? Maim them? Bring it out in blood equity? Or some sort of "bringing them to justice?" Its just stuff. You never know what the motivations they had for doing it. It could have done all sorts of good, at a cost of some personal sacrifice. Is it wrong? Society says so. But personal "justice" is just as extreme. And yes, I have had things stolen from me.
- trustfundbaby 16y ago
  > What are you going to do? Kill them? Maim them? Bring it out in blood equity? Or some sort of "bringing them to justice?" Its almost like you didn't read the story or something.
- carussell 16y ago
  You never know what the motivations they had for doing it. It could have done all sorts of good, at a cost of some personal sacrifice. Or the person could be serial thief relying on the stolen goods to avoid work and with an aptitude to participate in other criminal activities. Just like he was.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  So you are saying it is OK to steal from me if your motives are pure? That's BS. Expecting people to obey the law is not "personal justice", it is just justice.

jlgosse 16y ago

I'm not totally knowledgable about insurance, but I'm pretty sure if you leave the car door unlocked (or apartment door for that matter), insurance doesn't cover the theft. There needs to be some sort of forced entry, as far as I remember.

brc 16y ago
I left my car unlocked and accidentally left the garage door up. I lost the stereo from the car, and suffered a lot of console damage as well. I had two surfboards, some tools and a set of CD's stolen. It was all completely my fault for bumping the garage door remote (I now leave it in the car, always). The insurance company paid up, both for the household items taken, and the car insurance for the stolen stereo and damaged interior. In fact, with the new-for-old policy, I got replacements on some old stuff with nice new items. The takeaway is : check your policy. You want to insure against loss and stupidity.
- philwelch 16y ago
  If you lived in a bad enough neighborhood and had an insurance policy like that, "accidentally" leaving your doors unlocked would be a cheap and easy insurance fraud--which is why some insurers are reluctant to cover people in that situation.
  - brc 16y ago
    Well I always live in good neighbourhoods, so I guess the insurers don't mind in my case. My current policy also covers theft of items stored outside the house - bikes, ladders, furniture, etc. Sometimes it's not always cheaper to live in bad areas, when you add up the total cost of living.