6 ms·

Nope. In most states (CA for example) it is a felony to sell stolen goods when the amount exceeds a pretty modest threshold. If, as alleged in the parent commen

Nope. In most states (CA for example) it is a felony to sell stolen goods when the amount exceeds a pretty modest threshold. If, as alleged in the parent comment, they are committing a crime on a large scale then the blame is very well placed. *of course this does not exonerate the original thieves, but as a matter of practicality it is going to be easier to hit a single large offender than a myriad of small ones.

notch656a 4y ago
mens rea
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You don't have to intend to commit a crime to have mens rea. You merely have to intentionally do all the steps involved in the crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and neither is intentional ignorance of whether you are breaking it or not. Pawn shops got the receiving end of this deal a while ago. Now it's Amazon's turn.
  - samtho 4y ago
    Intent does matter, however - plausible deniability would not be a thing otherwise. Only in cases of strict liability are intentions not usually considered, which mostly include minor offenses (infractions) and a few major ones like statutory rape. Possession of items that are illegal to possess in any situation is another case where strict liability applies, but possession of legal goods that “a reasonable person” would not be aware was stolen does not fall into this case. Amazon sellers sign a contract saying the goods they offer for sell are their legal possessions to sell, giving Amazon plausible deniability as if anyone breaks the law, as the seller would then also be breaking their rules as well. I think we need to ask ourselves the harder questions of why people are stealing and figure out how to address that issue. Just like how we here tend to condemn technological solutions for social problems, tons of legal regulations can be fairly criticized for a being a legal solution to a social problem.
    - nirimda 4y ago
      I'm not sure why the fundamental problem here is that people are stealing, rather than that a known billionaire is willing to operate a business that is known to be an attractive way to profit from theft. You almost certainly can't eliminate theft without predictable laws; no one ever has, and to the extent that it's been reduced, the existence of a reliable legal process has been part of it. And Amazon can't exactly plead "plausible deniability" in an absolute sense here, because they ought to be aware that they're acting as a fence, and they ought to be aware that their processes are insufficient for reducing the degree of theft that's going on. If they've deliberately chosen to be ignorant of those facts, it would actually raise their level of culpability. Finally, your analogy of legal solutions to technical solutions fails. In a democracy, legal solutions exist to meet the burden of social expectations. They do not stand outside of society. Unlike democratic laws, technical solutions are usually imposed on a community by people with disproportionate power - laws are created on a one person - one vote basis, but technical solutions are usually created on a one dollar - one vote basis. Therefore, technical solutions are usually not responsive to the needs of a society, and are far more likely to represent someone's One Fantastic Idea to Solve All Problems, rather than a compromise of interests resulting in social norms that can be imposed on defectors. This is exactly an occasion when existing laws should be used, rather than plea for the devaluation of trust and law by ignoring laws simply because they might be applied against a powerful person.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    I thought pawn shops exist in kind of a weird in between place. As long as they feed info to the police, they can deal in property that’s “possibly but not probably” stolen. And even “definitely stolen” provided certain circumstances are met: like if the item was insured and insurance paid out.
- lupire 4y ago
  Willful negligence, and creating a public nuisance.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Why willful negligence?
SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago
I am fairly sure that trafficking in stolen goods is only a crime if the person knew, or if a reasonable person should have known, that the goods were stolen.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  And many people at Amazon surely do know that they sell stolen goods but decide to do nothing about it
  - notch656a 4y ago
    And many people who buy from Amazon know Amazon must happen to sell some goods that are stolen, yet they still shop there. If everyone had to cease buying/selling because they know their counterparty must have some stolen goods then trade would literally ground to a halt. I don't know if it's a crime if it's just "somewhere we must be buying stolen goods, but we don't know where." I'm not a lawyer but I think knowing that the specific item you bought/sold was stolen would look differently in court than just having some vague knowledge there must be stolen stuff somewhere in the supply chain.
- Teever 4y ago
  Merely possessing stolen goods is a crime where I am from and is more than likely the same where you are.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Nope. Possession of stolen property is not a strict liability offense under US criminal law. Prosecution requires mens rea.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  This depends - if a person goes out of their way not to find out whether the goods are legitimate, it's equally bad. Either way, if you possess stolen goods, they will usually be taken from you and returned to their owner. If that happened to a lot of Amazon customers, the refund volume would encourage Amazon to crack down on their supply chain.

notch656a 4y ago

mens rea

pclmulqdq 4y ago
You don't have to intend to commit a crime to have mens rea. You merely have to intentionally do all the steps involved in the crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and neither is intentional ignorance of whether you are breaking it or not. Pawn shops got the receiving end of this deal a while ago. Now it's Amazon's turn.
- samtho 4y ago
  Intent does matter, however - plausible deniability would not be a thing otherwise. Only in cases of strict liability are intentions not usually considered, which mostly include minor offenses (infractions) and a few major ones like statutory rape. Possession of items that are illegal to possess in any situation is another case where strict liability applies, but possession of legal goods that “a reasonable person” would not be aware was stolen does not fall into this case. Amazon sellers sign a contract saying the goods they offer for sell are their legal possessions to sell, giving Amazon plausible deniability as if anyone breaks the law, as the seller would then also be breaking their rules as well. I think we need to ask ourselves the harder questions of why people are stealing and figure out how to address that issue. Just like how we here tend to condemn technological solutions for social problems, tons of legal regulations can be fairly criticized for a being a legal solution to a social problem.
  - nirimda 4y ago
    I'm not sure why the fundamental problem here is that people are stealing, rather than that a known billionaire is willing to operate a business that is known to be an attractive way to profit from theft. You almost certainly can't eliminate theft without predictable laws; no one ever has, and to the extent that it's been reduced, the existence of a reliable legal process has been part of it. And Amazon can't exactly plead "plausible deniability" in an absolute sense here, because they ought to be aware that they're acting as a fence, and they ought to be aware that their processes are insufficient for reducing the degree of theft that's going on. If they've deliberately chosen to be ignorant of those facts, it would actually raise their level of culpability. Finally, your analogy of legal solutions to technical solutions fails. In a democracy, legal solutions exist to meet the burden of social expectations. They do not stand outside of society. Unlike democratic laws, technical solutions are usually imposed on a community by people with disproportionate power - laws are created on a one person - one vote basis, but technical solutions are usually created on a one dollar - one vote basis. Therefore, technical solutions are usually not responsive to the needs of a society, and are far more likely to represent someone's One Fantastic Idea to Solve All Problems, rather than a compromise of interests resulting in social norms that can be imposed on defectors. This is exactly an occasion when existing laws should be used, rather than plea for the devaluation of trust and law by ignoring laws simply because they might be applied against a powerful person.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  I thought pawn shops exist in kind of a weird in between place. As long as they feed info to the police, they can deal in property that’s “possibly but not probably” stolen. And even “definitely stolen” provided certain circumstances are met: like if the item was insured and insurance paid out.
lupire 4y ago
Willful negligence, and creating a public nuisance.
- prvit 4y ago
  Why willful negligence?

SpelingBeeChamp 4y ago

I am fairly sure that trafficking in stolen goods is only a crime if the person knew, or if a reasonable person should have known, that the goods were stolen.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
And many people at Amazon surely do know that they sell stolen goods but decide to do nothing about it
- notch656a 4y ago
  And many people who buy from Amazon know Amazon must happen to sell some goods that are stolen, yet they still shop there. If everyone had to cease buying/selling because they know their counterparty must have some stolen goods then trade would literally ground to a halt. I don't know if it's a crime if it's just "somewhere we must be buying stolen goods, but we don't know where." I'm not a lawyer but I think knowing that the specific item you bought/sold was stolen would look differently in court than just having some vague knowledge there must be stolen stuff somewhere in the supply chain.
Teever 4y ago
Merely possessing stolen goods is a crime where I am from and is more than likely the same where you are.
- nradov 4y ago
  Nope. Possession of stolen property is not a strict liability offense under US criminal law. Prosecution requires mens rea.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
This depends - if a person goes out of their way not to find out whether the goods are legitimate, it's equally bad. Either way, if you possess stolen goods, they will usually be taken from you and returned to their owner. If that happened to a lot of Amazon customers, the refund volume would encourage Amazon to crack down on their supply chain.