4 ms·

you know what I think is funny? if 3% loss is acceptable than why do these people even get prosecuted? deterrent so that it's not 4%? sure but there's something

you know what I think is funny? if 3% loss is acceptable than why do these people even get prosecuted? deterrent so that it's not 4%? sure but there's something unsatisfying about that as justification for imprisoning someone. before someone accuses me of being a communist hippie I have a thought experiment for you: every 5 years I do spring cleaning by taking all of the boxes drawers etc of accumulated consumer goods junk I haven't looked inside of in the past 5 year and just take them to good will. I reason that if it hasn't been important in the last 5 years it never will be and that I would waste more time (money) looking closely. now the thought experiment: suppose someone had broken into my house over the last 5 years and stolen something from one of those receptacles that was eventually thrown out. should I be upset? now note that I'm not asking if I'm legally entitled to being upset but whether it would be rational to be upset. but let me actually put on my hippie commie beatnik hat: there is so much money sloshing around in the economy and inefficiencies that entrepreneurs exploit to become wealthy. most of it is above board but some of it isn't and whether those people get punished or not is largely a function of whether they're caught before they're super successful or not. what is the difference here? these people saw an inefficiency and took advantage of it. to put a sort of hyberbolic point on it: why is this theft but selling toxic cdos not? in both "transactions" ultimately one party profited at the expense of the counterparty. Edit: I love the downvotes. What exactly about my comment isn't "curious" as dang loves to exhort. God forbid someone questions the most totalitarian institution the human mind has ever conceived of: the law. HN is no different from every other pointless echo chamber that double speaks about freedom but suppresses dissenting opinions.

alasdair_ 7y ago
I, for one, would prefer my unused stuff went to a charity of my choosing than a thief.
EForEndeavour 7y ago
> suppose someone had broken into my house over the last 5 years and stolen something from one of those receptacles that was eventually thrown out. should I be upset? now note that I'm not asking if I'm legally entitled to being upset but whether it would be rational to be upset. A person's response to being burglarized is never purely rational. You've got the distress of the initial discovery, followed by the subsequent process of figuring out what (if anything) they stole, modified, or left behind, and the process of reporting the crime to authorities. Then you'll deal with self-blame about not investing more in home security and uncertainty about whether these thieves will come back for what they left behind (did they break in knowing you were gone, or did they mistakenly think you were home...?). Even if you had excellent video surveillance coverage that proved that they only took stuff you'd forgotten about, the burglar(s) violated your personal space, which obviously feels pretty awful, and may have broken something on their way in. The negativity of getting burglarized is irrational in nature and difficult to quantify in economic terms, but is nevertheless real. In conclusion, I'd say every victim of B&E has great reasons to be upset, regardless of what (if anything) was stolen.
- mlevental 7y ago
  all of that is certainly true but not the point of my thought experiment because I'm sure Amazon the corporation doesn't experience emotional distress from having its personal space violated (so I'm sure that there won't be punitive damages for emotional distress in their sentences).
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    But... your thought experiment was specifically about a hypothetical burglary perpetrated against a person, and specifically did not mention Amazon or corporations.
    - mlevental 7y ago
      Yes to illustrate a point about Amazon's margins, not to compare the person's emotional duress to Amazon's
freehunter 7y ago
Look into the Broken Windows theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If you let criminals get away with breaking into someone's house and stealing things, it sends a message to other people that crime is allowed. Crime rates start to rise because no one is doing anything about it. People who were not criminals before are now comfortable being criminals because they know they won't be caught. If you don't prosecute the small crimes, it often leads to bigger crimes.
- mlevental 7y ago
  I pre-empted you >deterrent so that it's not 4%? My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    > My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel. So you're saying punitive damages (should) violate the 8th amendment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
    - mlevental 7y ago
      Yes I think I'm comfortable with that position.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    No, your response indicates you do not understand the broken windows theory at all. I would suggest you go back and read it. I linked it for a reason. You're imprisoning criminals for the crimes they committed, not just to send a message. But imprisoning criminals for committing crimes does send a message and that message is that crime is not tolerated. You might be okay with someone breaking into your house to steal your personal property without your permission but I'm going to guess you're not okay with someone breaking into your house and murdering your entire family. Would you then argue that it would be cruel to imprison the murderer? Because it would just be to "send a message" the murder is wrong? No, of course not. They committed a crime, and that's what they're being punished for. Punishing criminals does not reduce the crime rate. It's the act of not punishing them that increases the crime rate. Note that this comment does not remove the need for you to read the linked wiki article.
mehrdadn 7y ago
It's hard to answer without knowing what you consider "rational". You're asking about an emotion, and a negative one at that. When is being upset ever "rational" in your mind in the first place? It's pretty nonproductive as far as the external world is concerned, and it sucks away your time and energy. The way you've posed it I don't see when it's ever rational, unless you're the type of person who thinks "I'm going to cry anyway, so I'll set myself a reminder to cry when I'm free at 5pm today because otherwise it'll interrupt my work tomorrow".
NullPrefix 7y ago
> suppose someone had broken into my house over the last 5 years and stolen something from one of those receptacles that was eventually thrown out. should I be upset? Should you be upset if they raided good will safe too?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

alasdair_ 7y ago

I, for one, would prefer my unused stuff went to a charity of my choosing than a thief.

EForEndeavour 7y ago

> suppose someone had broken into my house over the last 5 years and stolen something from one of those receptacles that was eventually thrown out. should I be upset? now note that I'm not asking if I'm legally entitled to being upset but whether it would be rational to be upset. A person's response to being burglarized is never purely rational. You've got the distress of the initial discovery, followed by the subsequent process of figuring out what (if anything) they stole, modified, or left behind, and the process of reporting the crime to authorities. Then you'll deal with self-blame about not investing more in home security and uncertainty about whether these thieves will come back for what they left behind (did they break in knowing you were gone, or did they mistakenly think you were home...?). Even if you had excellent video surveillance coverage that proved that they only took stuff you'd forgotten about, the burglar(s) violated your personal space, which obviously feels pretty awful, and may have broken something on their way in. The negativity of getting burglarized is irrational in nature and difficult to quantify in economic terms, but is nevertheless real. In conclusion, I'd say every victim of B&E has great reasons to be upset, regardless of what (if anything) was stolen.

mlevental 7y ago
all of that is certainly true but not the point of my thought experiment because I'm sure Amazon the corporation doesn't experience emotional distress from having its personal space violated (so I'm sure that there won't be punitive damages for emotional distress in their sentences).
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  But... your thought experiment was specifically about a hypothetical burglary perpetrated against a person, and specifically did not mention Amazon or corporations.
  - mlevental 7y ago
    Yes to illustrate a point about Amazon's margins, not to compare the person's emotional duress to Amazon's

freehunter 7y ago

Look into the Broken Windows theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If you let criminals get away with breaking into someone's house and stealing things, it sends a message to other people that crime is allowed. Crime rates start to rise because no one is doing anything about it. People who were not criminals before are now comfortable being criminals because they know they won't be caught. If you don't prosecute the small crimes, it often leads to bigger crimes.

mlevental 7y ago
I pre-empted you >deterrent so that it's not 4%? My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  > My point is imprisoning someone to "send a message" rather than for the effect of the crime is cruel. So you're saying punitive damages (should) violate the 8th amendment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
  - mlevental 7y ago
    Yes I think I'm comfortable with that position.
- freehunter 7y ago
  No, your response indicates you do not understand the broken windows theory at all. I would suggest you go back and read it. I linked it for a reason. You're imprisoning criminals for the crimes they committed, not just to send a message. But imprisoning criminals for committing crimes does send a message and that message is that crime is not tolerated. You might be okay with someone breaking into your house to steal your personal property without your permission but I'm going to guess you're not okay with someone breaking into your house and murdering your entire family. Would you then argue that it would be cruel to imprison the murderer? Because it would just be to "send a message" the murder is wrong? No, of course not. They committed a crime, and that's what they're being punished for. Punishing criminals does not reduce the crime rate. It's the act of not punishing them that increases the crime rate. Note that this comment does not remove the need for you to read the linked wiki article.

mehrdadn 7y ago

It's hard to answer without knowing what you consider "rational". You're asking about an emotion, and a negative one at that. When is being upset ever "rational" in your mind in the first place? It's pretty nonproductive as far as the external world is concerned, and it sucks away your time and energy. The way you've posed it I don't see when it's ever rational, unless you're the type of person who thinks "I'm going to cry anyway, so I'll set myself a reminder to cry when I'm free at 5pm today because otherwise it'll interrupt my work tomorrow".

NullPrefix 7y ago

> suppose someone had broken into my house over the last 5 years and stolen something from one of those receptacles that was eventually thrown out. should I be upset? Should you be upset if they raided good will safe too?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]