4 ms·

I think this comment is really good at highlighting the rift here. So the "poor kid" should know that it's OK to steal from decent folks, because they would nev

I think this comment is really good at highlighting the rift here. So the "poor kid" should know that it's OK to steal from decent folks, because they would never "devalue" his life for such a small thing. But, the same "poor kid", would've never risked stealing from sick psychos like myself. The only conclusion I get from this is that it's better to be a sick psycho, because then people would only try to steal something from you by mistake.

palmetieri2000 5y ago
People dont choose the circumstances they are born into, most of us non-US folk consider criminals as victims of their environment who need guidance to recognize that there are better ways to go about their life. We tend to believe that there are some criminal that are doing what they need to survive, and some who like doing their crime but that both, with genuine rehabilitation, would prefer to NOT be engaging in crime. This does not absolve them of responsibility for crimes or harm done to others (In the cat converter discussion, this is the punishment a court would give them if they were prosecuted. Not a citizen executing them.) , but it does grant them the same humanity as everyone else. This is a part of why we don't believe in court ordered execution in Australia. You conclusion feels very representative of the US on killing each other, clearly the superior option to being a psycho or being the victimized 'decent folks' is to improve the quality of life for the thief and create disincentive for criminality by providing opportunities. Instead you focus on the retribution/threat element, using your almighty constitutional rights to enforce the protection of a car part. Look, it has been many many many years now in which US citizens have had guns and the right to shoot motherfuckers, how's that violent crime rate? what about thefts? muggings? any less cat converters getting stolen? Funnily enough, yes! Just in others countries that aren't so focused on punitive bullshit that they think its at all ethical to kill anyone for a car part.
- foxrider 5y ago
  See, I'm not an american, as I've mentioned before. I can see both points, and this is my view of the situation, that you are free to call hypocritical, yet I wouldn't be able to offer anything better: Both views are right depending on your vantage point. Yes, criminals as a class/as a whole deserve pity and rehabilitation if they are apprehended by the law. I see no point in just punishing people for extended amount of time, especially because it's proven not to decrease the repeated offense. If someone's in custody and receives the sentence - yes, give them the rehabilitation and help, let them enjoy the second chance and all that - because that would make people more safe, as opposed to less safe, that's a good outcome. However, I would also say - do not expect mercy or pity from individuals you're committing a crime against. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who's a victim of a crime to offer any sympathy or moral consideration to the criminal in the act, and we should not look down at or punish people using lethal force to prevent a crime. IMO and individual has every right to protect himself in any possible way, as long as it prevents him from becoming a victim. I would never be able to accept that sometimes it's better to let someone commit a crime against you to not victimize them instead. Can we have both? My opinion is that yes, I see no contradiction here. I don't think we should have the same standards for the justice system and the individual.
  - palmetieri2000 5y ago
    The contradiction I see is that (IMO) your property is not you. If an individual is committing a crime against your property, I do not believe you have the right to kill them. In this thread a lot of people are relying on the logic that stealing your cat converter could lead to you losing your job and spiraling into homelessness. If someone is doing something that you can reasonably interpret as trying to kill you (or assault you) then you are allowed to defend yourself. This may be shocking to people of your perspective (not a personal attack), but in Australia individuals have been sent to jail for the second punch they have thrown after the first punch had effectively reduced the risk of death or injury to 0 (eg knocked out the criminal, the criminal began fleeing). This is exactly what I am referring to when I said that we grant criminals the same humanity as everybody else. In Australia (and some countries in Europe), Criminals DO expect mercy or pity from their victims, lest the victim risk legal trouble themselves, and if you go and compare the crime rates and violent crime rates of these countries with those that do not practice this philosophy, I think you will find that our harm minimization policy works better.
foxfluff 5y ago
I sort of understand that point of view, but I still think that killing should be absolutely last resort in a civilized society, and that society should find other ways to deter crime and/or protect and help the victims. In a broken (or broke) society, it might be the case that violence and vigilantism are your only choices left for deterring and preventing crime, but that is not a state of affairs I would aspire to.
- foxrider 5y ago
  And I agree with your very broad statement, our views aren't opposed to each other. Just don't confuse "the society" and "me, the individual". As an individual, I don't care about retribution, I never said that if someone steals from me then I would track them down and kill them. Instead, I only care about one thing - preventing crime against myself, with lethal force if available. If I'm allowed to protect myself and my rights with lethal force and the society as a whole manages to lower the crime rate through any mean, be it through a better prison system, rehabilitation, or other means - that would only mean I would never have to use my right to protect myself with lethal force, and I'd be happier as a result. But I still wouldn't give up that right.

palmetieri2000 5y ago

People dont choose the circumstances they are born into, most of us non-US folk consider criminals as victims of their environment who need guidance to recognize that there are better ways to go about their life. We tend to believe that there are some criminal that are doing what they need to survive, and some who like doing their crime but that both, with genuine rehabilitation, would prefer to NOT be engaging in crime. This does not absolve them of responsibility for crimes or harm done to others (In the cat converter discussion, this is the punishment a court would give them if they were prosecuted. Not a citizen executing them.) , but it does grant them the same humanity as everyone else. This is a part of why we don't believe in court ordered execution in Australia. You conclusion feels very representative of the US on killing each other, clearly the superior option to being a psycho or being the victimized 'decent folks' is to improve the quality of life for the thief and create disincentive for criminality by providing opportunities. Instead you focus on the retribution/threat element, using your almighty constitutional rights to enforce the protection of a car part. Look, it has been many many many years now in which US citizens have had guns and the right to shoot motherfuckers, how's that violent crime rate? what about thefts? muggings? any less cat converters getting stolen? Funnily enough, yes! Just in others countries that aren't so focused on punitive bullshit that they think its at all ethical to kill anyone for a car part.

foxrider 5y ago
See, I'm not an american, as I've mentioned before. I can see both points, and this is my view of the situation, that you are free to call hypocritical, yet I wouldn't be able to offer anything better: Both views are right depending on your vantage point. Yes, criminals as a class/as a whole deserve pity and rehabilitation if they are apprehended by the law. I see no point in just punishing people for extended amount of time, especially because it's proven not to decrease the repeated offense. If someone's in custody and receives the sentence - yes, give them the rehabilitation and help, let them enjoy the second chance and all that - because that would make people more safe, as opposed to less safe, that's a good outcome. However, I would also say - do not expect mercy or pity from individuals you're committing a crime against. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who's a victim of a crime to offer any sympathy or moral consideration to the criminal in the act, and we should not look down at or punish people using lethal force to prevent a crime. IMO and individual has every right to protect himself in any possible way, as long as it prevents him from becoming a victim. I would never be able to accept that sometimes it's better to let someone commit a crime against you to not victimize them instead. Can we have both? My opinion is that yes, I see no contradiction here. I don't think we should have the same standards for the justice system and the individual.
- palmetieri2000 5y ago
  The contradiction I see is that (IMO) your property is not you. If an individual is committing a crime against your property, I do not believe you have the right to kill them. In this thread a lot of people are relying on the logic that stealing your cat converter could lead to you losing your job and spiraling into homelessness. If someone is doing something that you can reasonably interpret as trying to kill you (or assault you) then you are allowed to defend yourself. This may be shocking to people of your perspective (not a personal attack), but in Australia individuals have been sent to jail for the second punch they have thrown after the first punch had effectively reduced the risk of death or injury to 0 (eg knocked out the criminal, the criminal began fleeing). This is exactly what I am referring to when I said that we grant criminals the same humanity as everybody else. In Australia (and some countries in Europe), Criminals DO expect mercy or pity from their victims, lest the victim risk legal trouble themselves, and if you go and compare the crime rates and violent crime rates of these countries with those that do not practice this philosophy, I think you will find that our harm minimization policy works better.

foxfluff 5y ago

I sort of understand that point of view, but I still think that killing should be absolutely last resort in a civilized society, and that society should find other ways to deter crime and/or protect and help the victims. In a broken (or broke) society, it might be the case that violence and vigilantism are your only choices left for deterring and preventing crime, but that is not a state of affairs I would aspire to.

foxrider 5y ago
And I agree with your very broad statement, our views aren't opposed to each other. Just don't confuse "the society" and "me, the individual". As an individual, I don't care about retribution, I never said that if someone steals from me then I would track them down and kill them. Instead, I only care about one thing - preventing crime against myself, with lethal force if available. If I'm allowed to protect myself and my rights with lethal force and the society as a whole manages to lower the crime rate through any mean, be it through a better prison system, rehabilitation, or other means - that would only mean I would never have to use my right to protect myself with lethal force, and I'd be happier as a result. But I still wouldn't give up that right.