Eh, somewhere in between. Back when I lived in Oakland (where there was/is a serious package theft problem) everyone in the neighborhood knew who stole folks’ deliveries (camera systems are basically free these days). It happened daily and the cops were too busy fending off corruption and sex trafficking scandals to give a damn. 20% of the time it was some high schooler and you would yell at their parents and get your shit back. 80% of the time it was semi-organized teams of people from a few towns over who would roll up to the end of the street in plate-less cars and drop a couple dudes off on foot. Dudes on foot would walk down the street and grab packages off people’s porches while the car would drive up to the next intersection. Dudes hop in the car, car hits the freeway and is in another city (and soon County) in no time.

Definitely intentional crimes (these things take planning, including networks to fence the stolen goods), but if you yell at them they just move on the next house without retailiating. The second you start harrasing people and causing a ruckus the police have fewer excuses to ignore the issue, and your easy source of cash is gone.

One could argue that so called 'hard-core' criminals were once and in some cases still are opportunists, even if the outcomes of their crimes might or might not be more severe than stealing an Amazon package from someone's door step.

That aside though, I'm curious:

What makes you think an opportunist who clearly has the time and means to swipe packages from someone's door while they're at work wouldn't take similar time and opportunity to conduct other forms of petty deviance like vandalizing the car of someone who blasted them with glitter? They clearly have no qualm or compunction with theft, is avenge-fueled-vandalism that far up the logic latter to next steps?

So that the unwitting landlord can be penalised as well?