4 ms·

I’m always disgusted when people share those photos with the public or third parties even though doing so is clearly not necessary for recovering the stolen pro

by ugh 15y ago

I’m always disgusted when people share those photos with the public or third parties even though doing so is clearly not necessary for recovering the stolen property. It just seems immoral to me, no matter whether you know that the thief or someone else took the photos. I can’t comment on the law but I really don’t understand people who are ok with this kind of behavior. Thieves don’t suddenly become fair game for any treatment just because they are thieves.

redthrowaway 15y ago
>Thieves don’t suddenly become fair game for any treatment just because they are thieves. Any treatment, no. Humiliation? Sure. Mark Bao struck the right note with his video of the "dancing" thief, but I'd be willing to go further than that. When you violate someone's person or property, I'm okay with a disproportionate response. I think it should hurt you more than it hurt them. I make no claim to any moral foundation to this belief, but I don't feel sorry for muggers who get the shit kicked out of them or thieves who get exposed and ridiculed online. Granted, the OP makes a good point: you have to be damned sure in these cases that the person you're humiliating is, in fact, the thief.
- ugh 15y ago
  I guess I’m weird but I have really no desire to punish people.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    That's a nice thought in theory, but it leads to antisocial behaviour in practice. Punishment is necessary. The severity of punishment is up to debate, but negative reinforcement works where positive doesn't (and vice versa). Now, as far as desire to see a shit head get punished, that's pure petty schadenfreude and I make neither excuses nor apologies for it. I don't claim to be a paragon of moral virtue. I get warm fuzzies from seeing people get deserved comeuppance. It's such a deeply ingrained part of our cultural psyche (look at every movie Disney ever made), and so universal across cultures, that I suspect it's just an integral part of human nature. We can aspire to loftier moral heights, but at the end of the day a whole lot of us get satisfaction from seeing the bad guy lose.
    - ugh 15y ago
      When I say “punishment” I’m talking about everything that’s beyond mere deterrence. I have no problem with deterrence, yet no desire to punish.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >I have no problem with deterrence, yet no desire to punish. // Could you explain this, perhaps with a solid example or a crime, it's deterrence that is not punishment. For example if you fine someone for drink driving that is both a deterrent and punishment. I can't readily see how you deter without introducing punishment.
        ugh 15y ago
        I’m using really a weird definition of punishment. That’s my fault. Maybe I should stop doing that. I’m ok with punishment if we know (or if it is at least plausible) that it’s a deterrence. I’m not ok with punishment for the sake of punishment. I’m also not ok with drastic increases in punishment for little or questionable gains in deterrence. To pick an absurd example: If we were to find out that not imprisoning or otherwise punishing murderers would decrease the murder rate I would be all for stopping punishing murderers. If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it. // OK I think I got that from your previous comment. What I can't see is if there is actually an instance that matches your preference at all. For example in my country minor criminals might be persuaded to meet the people they've offended against. Some may not define this as punishment but it can be a type of humiliation and so I'd class it as a (very minor) punishment. I'd guess you'd be thinking of something like giving free drugs to addicts that rob people to stop them robbing and at the same time just leave the victims to sort themselves out and pay for the crime (ie no levy, no fine, etc.)?? FWIW this example seems injust to me.

by ugh 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago

>Thieves don’t suddenly become fair game for any treatment just because they are thieves. Any treatment, no. Humiliation? Sure. Mark Bao struck the right note with his video of the "dancing" thief, but I'd be willing to go further than that. When you violate someone's person or property, I'm okay with a disproportionate response. I think it should hurt you more than it hurt them. I make no claim to any moral foundation to this belief, but I don't feel sorry for muggers who get the shit kicked out of them or thieves who get exposed and ridiculed online. Granted, the OP makes a good point: you have to be damned sure in these cases that the person you're humiliating is, in fact, the thief.

ugh 15y ago
I guess I’m weird but I have really no desire to punish people.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  That's a nice thought in theory, but it leads to antisocial behaviour in practice. Punishment is necessary. The severity of punishment is up to debate, but negative reinforcement works where positive doesn't (and vice versa). Now, as far as desire to see a shit head get punished, that's pure petty schadenfreude and I make neither excuses nor apologies for it. I don't claim to be a paragon of moral virtue. I get warm fuzzies from seeing people get deserved comeuppance. It's such a deeply ingrained part of our cultural psyche (look at every movie Disney ever made), and so universal across cultures, that I suspect it's just an integral part of human nature. We can aspire to loftier moral heights, but at the end of the day a whole lot of us get satisfaction from seeing the bad guy lose.
  - ugh 15y ago
    When I say “punishment” I’m talking about everything that’s beyond mere deterrence. I have no problem with deterrence, yet no desire to punish.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      >I have no problem with deterrence, yet no desire to punish. // Could you explain this, perhaps with a solid example or a crime, it's deterrence that is not punishment. For example if you fine someone for drink driving that is both a deterrent and punishment. I can't readily see how you deter without introducing punishment.
      - ugh 15y ago
        I’m using really a weird definition of punishment. That’s my fault. Maybe I should stop doing that. I’m ok with punishment if we know (or if it is at least plausible) that it’s a deterrence. I’m not ok with punishment for the sake of punishment. I’m also not ok with drastic increases in punishment for little or questionable gains in deterrence. To pick an absurd example: If we were to find out that not imprisoning or otherwise punishing murderers would decrease the murder rate I would be all for stopping punishing murderers. If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it.
        pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        >If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it. // OK I think I got that from your previous comment. What I can't see is if there is actually an instance that matches your preference at all. For example in my country minor criminals might be persuaded to meet the people they've offended against. Some may not define this as punishment but it can be a type of humiliation and so I'd class it as a (very minor) punishment. I'd guess you'd be thinking of something like giving free drugs to addicts that rob people to stop them robbing and at the same time just leave the victims to sort themselves out and pay for the crime (ie no levy, no fine, etc.)?? FWIW this example seems injust to me.