But I live in an area with high property crime and the police do nothing about it, as desired by the local government representatives. That's a recipe for vigilantism.
I was attacked in a road rage incident, they didn't come. There was video, a witness, a traffic camera all available, they didn't investigate or prosecute.
Shots were fired outside of my apartment on the street the other day, the police didn't come.
I would rather not take the law into my own hands, but what choice does a person have?
Wow, seriously? No proportionality at all, no consideration of any mitigating factors that may be present, just simply "they broke my property rights so their life is forfeit".
I'm glad that in general society has moved on from such crude ideas of justice.
I've been mugged, and I've had my house broken into. Yes, it's shit. In neither case did I think anyone should die for it.
Killing someone is something you can't undo.
Even if you truly believe that someone's life is forfeit for stealing something of yours, there's no time given for evaluating the facts.
A split second decision, a bad judgement call, and you find out that the person you shot and killed, is actually some innocent bystander running to get away from the robber.
Maybe they are the person robbing you, but your shots hit someone else who's in their own house.
I've read a saying that a government is an entity with a "monopoly on violence." I think that however imperfect it is, giving the government this monopoly means that there's an objective process for deciding who deserves to live, and who doesn't. Personal satisfaction as a criterion is always going to produce outcomes that are massively disproportionate, and will simply shift the dissatisfaction to someone else.
not how the social contract works. Read Rousseau's "Du Contract Social", or just ask à french person if they think stealing deserves death
I mean come on guys this is pathetic, like HN is known for meticulously breaking down people's arguments point by point line by line, explaining each logical fallacy and you believed it would be okay to dive into justifying death of people... it sounds like you are sad about something personal
The US is a truly federal system in which each state has its own constitution and its own legal code. This is not a purely theoretical point, it's quite true that there are wide variations in laws between states as well as wide variations in state constitutions, which is one reason why, for example, a lawyer has to pass the bar in each state.
And like any nation, the legal code of a state is the result of historic and ethnic forces applicable to that state. For example, my colleague, who is from Italy, was worried about his mother being mugged repeatedly by some local youths, and he was telling me how worried he was about her. The last time she went to the police, she had the following conversation:
"Why do you keep releasing them? They will just steal again."
"Yes, but they are underage, so there is nothing we can do."
"But if I refused to give them my purse, they could kill me with the knife."
"Possibly."
"But if I were to get a gun to protect myself, and then shoot them the next time they threatened me with a knife, I would be arrested."
"Of course".
"So what can I do to protect myself?"
"Just give them your purse."
"But this is the third purse they have taken, and I can't afford another. Will you pay for the purse?"
"Of course not"
"And you wont put them in jail? You will just release them again?"
"Unfortunately, we have no choice"
"If I wait for them to try to hurt me with the knife and then shoot, would I still be arrested?"
"Probably"
So there are some things that are very difficult for Americans to understand that may make sense to someone from Italy and there is bafflement going in the other direction. In the U.S. if someone threatens you with violence, you generally have the right to defend yourself and to shoot them. You never need to allow someone to physically intimidate you into handing over your belongings, and you always have a right to defend yourself. But apparently this is considered unspeakably wrong in other countries. Fair enough, to each his own. But I will point out that strict laws against defending yourself are only possible in very peaceful societies. In more violent societies, the public will not tolerate being repeatedly robbed with no possibility of self-defense -- that is the origin of mafias in Italy, basically groups for protection when the central government was too weak.
This is one example of how there is no such thing as a "universal" social contract, as all of these rules are contingent on questions like what is the likelihood of being victimized by crime. Social contract theory is itself just a philosophy - and a poor explanation of legal codes - as laws and norms are the results of evolutionary processes involving trial and error, not social contract theory.
https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&Te....
Further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonization_of_Texas
even if you mean texans collectively decide what their social contract is, they don't, it is determined before them. it's what they were collectively born into.
Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that killing someone for theft is a reasonable and proportionate response? That is a dangerous and unhinged statement and I roundly condemn you for saying it.
The commenter I replied to seemed to unaware how far they had strayed beyond reasonable ethical statements. I don't think I could persuade them to change their position but I couldn't let that go unchallenged. Norms change one person at a time and speaking out is important.
Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying that a private citizen who catches a thief stealing their catalytic convertor can torture them slowly and painfully for weeks without actually killing them. You owe them no moral consideration, it's a deterrent, etc. Do you need someone to make a persuasive argument against the merits of that to realize that it's abhorrent?
It’s the divvying up of ingroup and out group that tend to create disagreements in morality. I.e. we understand forgiveness, but we disagree who is worthy. We understand justice but we disagree who deserves punishment or why.
That tends to make a pretty big difference in results and conclusions.
If a thief breaks into someone else's home in the middle of the night, they should have a healthy fear of being shot to death. If the homeowner believes their life is in immediate danger, it seems to me like they are well within their moral and legal right to incapacitate the intruder with a firearm. There's no judgement involved, only reaction under fear of imminent violence. If the thief dies, it was due to their own poor decisions.
Likewise, if the homeowner catches a thief jumping out of a window with their beanie baby collection, it would be unreasonable for the homeowner to take some shots at the thief just to try to injure them, and would probably be a chargeable felony. If the thief died, it would probably be deemed a homicide.
I think the earlier poster's question about the legality of defending property with force in Texas is interesting. I also think the subsequent poster's belief that society would benefit from more readily shooting criminals is a rational claim rather than an unhinged one, whether or not it's a good idea. It's certainly true that there would be less theft, whether it's because of deterrence or by the simple fact that thieves would tend to get shot. There's most certainly some complexity and nuance to appreciate there. Singapore canes people for overstaying their travel visas to discourage illegal immigration, and unsurprisingly it seems to be an effective deterrent.
I don't find it surprising that thieves face more gruesome punishments like hanging, cutting off hands, etc in places especially when there may be little recourse for the victims of theft and the theft represents a significant impact on their life.
I think reasonable argument against such things is that it is too easy for people to mistakenly hurt a non-thief on accident. That's more convincing to me than simply saying property < life at all times. If I was poor and needed my vehicle to get to work everyday and you're stealing it then yes I would be willing to shoot you to stop you.
property < life at all times.
This really is a bizarre line of reasoning.
That's not relevant to the argument at hand, nor is it a claim I have made.
Yes, which is one of the things that makes killing different from property theft.
> The thing is I don't want to take it back.
That's not relevant to the discussion here, which was one in which posters were claiming that their property represents part of their life, time they cannot get back, and thus taking it is somehow equivalent to taking a life. My point was that this is a false equivalence.
You do not appear to be making such an equivalence argument, so it's hardly a surprise that my counterpoint doesn't apply to whatever your reasoning is.
It's like jumping into an argument about which shade of green is better and saying "My favourite colour is red". Uh, good for you I guess.
If you kill someone who has 30 years of their life remaining to avenge your lost two weeks, you are extracting a 780-fold punishment on them. Unless a geriatric steals your Ferrari, the numbers will be similarly lopsided in other examples.
If you say, people can’t be replaced because they’re just inherently irreplaceable, that’s a tautology.
This line of argument is entirely disingenuous. My life, once taken, cannot be given back to me. Neither can any substitute life.
FWIW I don't believe that even making the comparison is valid. By the time you're weighing up stuff against literal human life, you've already gone wrong.
Treating life as some sort of priceless treasure really is divorced from reality too. I think most people would choose to shoot an arsonist before they could burn the Mona Lisa, and that's totally rational.
> I think most people would choose to shoot an arsonist before they could burn the Mona Lisa, and that's totally rational.
I think you might be surprised at how many didn't think that was all that reasonable.
We'll be polite and refer to it as pacifism, but the truth is it's cowardice.
This extreme pacifism, if actually practiced by anyone not so absurdly privileged to be able to take that stance, would lead to the downfall of civilization.
> I think you might be surprised at how many didn't think that was all that reasonable.
The magnitude of my disgust would seem to be growing, yes.
well lucky for you and unlucky for the theif, spent life isn't a real thing and it can do nothing for anyone.
> If I was poor and needed my vehicle to get to work everyday and you're stealing it then yes I would be willing to shoot you to stop you.
do me a favor and stick to speaking from your own actual experience. why would anyone care what you think you'd do if you were poor?
The endgoal is low crime, that's what most people want. If the more humane methods fail, people are going to happily go along with more brutal methods. If the state is sufficiently derelict of it's duty, then you'll see vigilantism.
Its not, generally, and for the faction for which it is in many respects, it is not specifically in being Muslim, because that faction is zealous Christian theocrats.
The downvotes on my comment are funny because I have no idea if the right or left is upset with it! It’s an uncomfortable topic either way, certainly.
I'm not saying this to attack your character - I'm just saying that normal and well-adjusted people do not think that way.
There's a requirement for "no trespassing" signs to be posted around property but the "will be shot" verbiage could be construed as premeditation since non government land owners aren't allowed to kill trespassers merely for the act of trespassing itself. It literally suggests that the property owner is waiting to shoot anyone who trespasses, which isn't kosher.
Trespassing on government land such as a military base could result in the trespasser being shot accidentally or otherwise and there are typically warning signs posted that will say things like "Use of deadly force authorized".
Over my life I have had thousands of dollars stolen from me in the form of stolen wages or services paid for but not rendered, but I feel like no one in this thread arguing for shooting of thieves would be fine with me shooting up the local Fedex because they lost my package and refused to reimburse me
Where is the line? Why is property theft deserving of the end of a human life?
In many parts of the world, a car used to get to work. If you can’t get to work, then you can’t make money, and if you can’t make money then you can’t eat.
Does everyone who gets their catalytic converter stolen have enough money to get it fixed? If not, then this crime might be tantamount to depriving someone of their whole car
It’s not just a random part of a car their stealing. It’s entirely possible that loosing the catalytic converter cascades into being jobless and homeless.
So what if the argument that having your car disabled could spiral you into homelessness is more of a critique on our lack of a safety net? What can the average citizen do about that? At this point, not very much. The system is cruel, yes, but it’s the one they live in.
In my city, catalytic converters thrives are known to be highly organized, armed, and prone to violently confronting people who try to chase them off. A few people have even been shot for trying to do so. The police are too busy with shooting after shooting to do anything effective to try to stop them. When you have a group of people going out night after night, stealing with impunity and threatening anyone who gets in their way, it becomes very difficult to muster any compassion for them.
So if the police are useless and you are beholden to this powerful and highly organized pack of thieves, you think going out there and shooting them is going to make your life any better? What happens if you don't 'get' them all and now you're in a shootout with multiple armed opponents? What about the rest of their organization, reckon they will let you get away with it? Personally, I'd rather have my car temporarily damaged.
What can an average citizen do about their safety net in the US? Probably a whole shitload, anywhere from political participation, union involvement, volunteering, voting for politicians that support a better safety net.
Physically ripping out a catalytic converter from a persons car is.
And don’t forget, it’s not like the police will do anything to help you…they’ve abdicated their role in many places for many crimes.
So, yeah, you can drive a car without a cat, but not without a muffler (generally). Fix it tickets still incur a monetary cost.
This is incorrect for modern diesels that have a DPF system and inject DEF fluid. The cats are required hardware. You may be allowed 50-250 miles without them then the vehicle will not operate. It is well within possibility that someone stealing your cat between two places in Texas could be a big problem for you.
The point being that humans defining natural rights goes against the concept of "natural". The entire exercise is a catch-22.
Funny how in each case where this comes up, natural rights always means something different. Almost as if the term is consistently used retroactively to justify extreme measures rather than to inform people of their rights per se.
You have not proposed a solution to this issue.
Your reply also stinks of moral realism which is a huge can of worms unto itself.
Property theft to many, even implicitly, is very much the equivalent of the theft of some quantity of their life. People work and struggle, expending some quantity of their life to acquire property. To forcibly deprive them of their property is the removal of some portion of their life.
The other way to view this is that in an ideal world, this is done by the state. The state alone possesses the means for other punishment. The individual cannot detain, nor can they fine or garnish wages. The sole means of action available to the individual is force. Thus, if the state is derelict in it's duty, the citizen has only the application of force at his disposal. When you're applying force, you'd better be willing to go to lethal, since being unwilling to do so drastically increases the risk to yourself if the counterparty doesn't play by the same rules.
This portion can be made whole again by replacing the property, either through insurance, through restorative judgements against the perpetrator, or various other means.
Taking a life is final.
Not if the original property is retrieved or the thief is made to pay.
I'm not sure in the context of this discussion, the worth of a human life, that your plea to consider where stuff comes from is that important.
Steal a candy bar, no biggie. Steal a car and I won't sweat that death.
Ideally though, the police would intervene. That they aren't is the root cause of this problem.
In an entirely reversible manner.
Perhaps only one place (Texas) uses this to justify regaining possession of property, which is what the GP was talking about.
Also:
> At most the Castle Doctrine is an affirmative defense for individuals inevitably charged with criminal homicide, not a permission or pretext to commit homicide.
The perpetrator delegated it to me when he chose to break into my house.
If you want to argue that human life has inherent value that can't be voluntarily given up, such that it's never right for me to take someone's life in defense of my property, the arguments in favor of that seem to be religious in nature. They don't always begin that way, but ultimately you have to back up your opinion with something objective if you want to convince me that I'm in the wrong. Basically you'd need to cite a higher authority in order to change my mind, and then proceed to convince me that the authority (a) exists; and (b) backs up your position.
Unless there's an argument I've overlooked, which is always possible. Are there other points of view on this, that don't boil down to either appeals to emotion or appeals to a mysteriously-absent higher moral authority? (Yes, there's the philosophical argument that the state should have a monopoly on violence, but that has the same flaws as the original argument, and can't always be applied in the heat of the moment.)
Lethal force to defend a life makes sense. Most cultures do not approve of using lethal force to defend property.
There's also the problem of the shooter misjudging the situation, shooting some teenager's playing chase, for example, or someone with alzheimers, etc. I actually know of a drunk that tried to break down the door into his apartment, but it turns out he was in the wrong building. Didn't deserve to die.
But I understand why people feel this way. Nobody wants to be robbed. In our consumerist culture possessions are the most important thing to many people.
I'm not saying that they didn't give gifts. Lots of people like to give gifts. I'm saying that ownership probably was a bigger deal than we give them credit for - but we will never know.
Europeans and Native Americans interacted. They observed each other. They talked to each other. For quite some time.
Kondiaronk [0] was a highly respected chief, statesman, and political philosophizer. Louis Armand de Lom d’Arce spent time in North America and wrote a book based on his dialogs with Kondiaronk [1]. This book was famous for a while. It contrasted the freedom and justice Indians had for themselves with the injustice of Christianity, subjugation to lords, and the problems associated with money and other facets of the European way of life. The book precipitated a lot of philosophical soul searching, an off-shoot of which was the idea of the "noble savage", which was used to eventually discount any ideas these primitives had as irrelevant to civilized modern people.
I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying that Kondiaronk would not have known how Indians lived?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondiaronk
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Voyages_to_North_America
I wouldn't think that the spread of smallpox invalidates what he said, just because things may have been different in the past, maybe for his tribe, maybe not so much. I'm sure that he would have known if a disease drastically changed his culture a hundred years prior.
Even before smallpox there was quite a variety of native cultures, Kondiaronk being Huron, who were quite different than the Inca and Aztec, for example. He probably would have criticized them, also.
Someone taking your car is fine if you can go take a different communal car.
If everyone else still has private property, and now you can't get to work or the store, that's a very different and very bad situation.
which, in the OP's world view, does exist, and it overrides the burglar's right to life.
Your argument against the OP's moralism is that the burglar's right to life should not be overridden by the OP's property rights. This is why moralistic arguments are flawed - different people (perhaps different cultures) have differing morals. The law, as codified by society (and hopefully, agreed to democratically) is what should be used to judge actions, not moralism.
edit: changed "claim" to "argue as if".
The word "burglar" assumes that property rights exist.
Note that I mostly think the inconsistency is silly and should be pointed at, I don't have a problem admitting that property rights exist in most societies.
edit: "intruder" has the same problem as burglar. Along with "home" and "robbery".
What I'm hearing is that you've never been the victim of any sort of assault.
Lucky guy.
Without a layer of social construction, it's just the use of dominating force, an exercise of power. If you want to argue that is how the world works, that's fine, but you are demanding that other people justify their social constructions and then assuming that your social constructions are not social constructions.
It's natural for me to defend my property with lethal force. (Consider how many animals will do the same thing, if another animal tries to take their food or mate away.) Consequently, assuming it's your position that I should not be allowed to do that, you have to pass a law and use force to stop me.
That means that yes, you're the one who gets to justify your unnatural (but still potentially optimal) point of view. Exactly why are we better off if we strive to remove the personal safety risk from criminal acts? It seems that we're starting to see the results play out in real time -- ask anyone who was shopping at the Nordstrom's in Walnut Creek the other day, for instance.
Does that mean I'd be inclined to shoot someone for stealing the catalytic converter from my car, parked at curbside on a public street? Honestly, I can't see myself doing that, because according to my personal values that would be a pretty sociopathic thing to do. But I'm also not inclined to interfere if someone else wants to do that. The recent trend towards de-policing and non-prosecution of property crimes will certainly lead to more instances of this kind of dilemma playing out on the street. If law enforcement won't act, you can't be too surprised when individual citizens do.
I'm making an abstract point about the form of the argument the other commenter constructed upthread, not advocating that property rights aren't real.
I wouldn't kill a person over stealing a candy from me, or trespassing on my lawn.
what they'll think twice about is making sure you're not around when they steal your stuff, either by not being at home or not being alive. and i have bad news for you, the aggressor has the advantage.
It doesn't matter what happens to you after this. The child is dead. And the killing of that child was encouraged by your hypothetical "legal to shoot thieves" law. Barring that law would have saved that child's life.
> your hypothetical "legal to shoot thieves" law.
Not hypothetical in Texas. So if you've got any real examples of teenagers looking for cats under cars getting shot, by all means trot them out.
In this case the killer was indicted and pleaded guilty to manslaughter: https://www.cullmantribune.com/2019/10/24/cullman-county-fat...
Because it's obviously not legal to murder your own son even if you think they're a thief.
In the unjustified cases, the shooter is found guilty. That's how the system functions: by shooting, you are certain enough that the individual is committing a crime that you are willing to go to jail if incorrect.
It's certainly better than the alternative found in other states, where people are tried and found guilty for defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property.
And meanwhile, the innocent dead person remains dead. Your system may be "functioning" but that's hardly a good outcome.
For how well that works, see:
- drug related crime in countries where it’s a death sentence
- militarized police forces and the overall outcome for society
- effects on crime levels in US states where such a crime is a capital offense vs states where it isn’t
All this does is raise the stakes and people committing the crimes resort to more violent means of committing the crime/avoid capture.
While it might feel good to know you’d be allowed to kill a thief, it won’t stop it from happening. It’ll just make it that much more dangerous to be around when that crime happens and more likely to get shot as a result.
Sure, everything is multimodal. But likelihood of getting caught (consistency of enforcement) and penalty size can both mediate the incentive. I'm not sure why everyone likes to boil it down to "PENALTIES DON'T WORK ONLY SOCIAL PROGRAMS".
Well then you've just broken the social contract. Since Hammurabi created the first written rule of law(at least this was taught growing up, but I believe they've found earlier tablets since) society generally agrees that an eye for an eye is the rule. The most you can do to an offender while being morally justified is the equivalent. Except in the case there's a proximate threat to your life, of course, owing to the fact that dead people can't get justice.
If you kill someone for stealing, off to prison you go. To put it into terms similar to yours-- why should I value the life of someone who broke the social contract as well as the law? The death of a man shakes me more than the theft of a catalytic converter, and the second you kill a man in my country you are affecting me far more than some common thief. Now you're making my family feel unsafe
What about the neighbor who likes your wife and decides to shoot you and then plant his wallet in your pocket?
Vigilante justice is not the answer.
What if the person had a gun pointed at the head of your child, finger on the trigger, ready to go.
What if they had already shot one of your children in the head?
Do you use the gun in your hand then? Or is it not the answer?
Not sure if any my examples match any of yours.
The consequences of being wrong outweigh the benefits of being right.
And have you ever taken someone's life before? It is not to be taken lightly and will no doubt haunt the shooter for many years. And for what, because someone stole $1000, $100, $10 or $1? If you are comfortable putting a value on someone's life and ending it with a bullet without remorse, that would make you a sociopath or a psychopath.
Can we trust you to accurately determine which situations are "clear cut" (and therefore justify summary execution)? Can we trust any random with a gun to make that determination? And can we trust them when they're the only surviving witness?
Is it a crime worthy of death when someone wanders onto your property due to some kind of mental illness? Is it a crime to accidentally open the wrong door? What about when you accidentally open the wrong door (see Amber Guyger)? Is it a crime to be in a store 1 minute after closing time? Or to walk on someone's property to deliver a package?
Is it a crime to upset someone at the bar and then turn up dead on their property, "in the process of committing a robbery"?
You are advocating for giving everyone the power of judge, jury, and executioner, regardless of whether they are qualified or honest. And you are encouraging those people to engage in gun battles where the "victim" is also at risk of death.
Spend more time thinking about your opinions.
One does not have the luxury to perform moral analyses of this nature when somebody hostile is running toward them with ill intent. In the heat of the moment, you have to make split second decisions to survive.
Also keep in mind that while it’s happening, you have no idea how far this individual intends to go. Were they just intending minor theft? Or maybe they broke into your car because they were trying to get to you? If they announce their intentions, do you even believe them?
Of course it’s easy to make the decision in the middle of the day with perfect information. Now picture waking up at 2am to sounds in your drive way and there’s 2 or 3 guys out there fucking with your car.
I don't know if you are putting on the airs of being a brave knight, or you truly are detached, but there's such a thing as visceral fear that people are coming to take your stuff or hurt you. Be glad that you've lived a privileged life where you've never known such a fear
That is crazy to me. Truly insane. If they tried to enter my home or harm my loved ones, that’s a different story. But if I saw people destroying my property, not attempting to get to me, I would call the police and lock the doors, not go fucking hunting.
Here people are saying, "Well I can't just let them have this valuable part of my car (that I might not be able to afford to replace). And I'm pretty sure the police aren't going to help me. And I don't think they will stop if I ask them. So I guess I have to shoot"
If you've already judged those people in your head as "hunters", then you're the one who's lost, not them. You have this completely distorted perception of your fellow human perhaps based on the media reporting on 0.0001% of crazy people in the world, and now you believe everyone who lives in texas thinks that way or something.
I'm not misinterpreting a thing you said. No, I'm looking at exactly the situation you are describing:
I'm in my house. It's 2am. I see a couple of people in my driveway fucking around under my car.
And you're saying that a valid moral decision is to leave my house with the intention to kill someone?
That is seeing a situation that you know you could leave alone, and choosing to introduce lethal force. That is fucking hunting for conflict to a degree that is absolutely frightening.
You are not saying "I would confront the thieves and bring a weapon in case I am attacked".
You are not even saying "I would use a weapon to threaten them into compliance".
You are saying you would shoot on sight. Instead of de-escalating, you would take the opportunity to ambush and kill. Can you see why some people might call that "hunting"?
I'm sorry you live in a world where the theft of a car part is a life-threatening event. I can see how vigilante justice would make a crazy sort of sense in that situation. However, in a stable society, those actions would be considered a serious crime.
Do you think that 'visceral fear'? only exists in the USA? Normal people in England, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, etc have had their home invaded or the car broken into and have dealt with the situation without guns.
You can judge us if you want. It really doesn't matter what some far away people who have no understanding of the way of life here think. It's good a thing we have a system where we are judged by a jury of our own peers here.
You say 'not as good as the countries you listed.' Yet you dismiss the thoughts of someone from who is trying to explain why people like YOU think we are 'good' countries.
Your last sentence is the summation of the modern American attitude that is so problematic, it is parochial, arrogant and unable learn from the rest of the world unless it is for profit.
And re jury, who do you think the jury is in each of those countries I listed? In Australia my jury is made of my 'peers' too buddy. It just my peers in my system don't believe crime against property justifies summary execution.
Don't tell me, tell the perp. He's the one who determined what his life was worth.
What sort of moral framework do you subscribe to that makes that okay?
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.
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.
For a single parent who needs that car to provide for their kids and risks losing their job if they don’t have it? Perhaps.
I would argue that the fact that one would be so scared of losing money would be that they fear losing their shelter, food, water etc., no?
Would it therefore not be more condemnable that a society is pitting people against each other in such a way that money is survival? Isn't this Squidgame's whole point?
So here we go.
The way I think about it its perfectly fine to use a bit of force to protect yourself, a little bit of thrashing of the thief will make him reconsider their actions. What I find weird is the execution bit. We condemn public beheadings and hangings in places like Singapore, but think its totally ok if our neighbors does it? Is our neighbor wiser than a whole state + the legal system?
If you shoot him dead, first of all there is little lesson learned, as there is noone to lean from. Yeah somebody else might hear about it, but how much will it affect them? The stats from the US are quite clear that deterrence does not actually happen, and other more lenient policies can be more effective. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel just copy some of the more successful societies.
I’d imagine a thief who gets a beating, some punishment and a path of redemption will be a hugely more influential to future thiefs as it will act both as a deterrent and a guide. Being dead doesn’t seem to be teaching anyone, or at least thats what the stats show us.
You are totally right about the emotions of being mugged, or live in a house that’s been broken into. Both have happened to me (though maybe on a much lower scale than what I see is the norm in the us). But to be honest I don’t _really_ want to punish the person for that. What I want is for that to never happen to me again. Punishment is just a tool for that to happen, and I believe a very blunt and ineffective at that. I want to leave in a society where stuff like that just doesn’t happen. And we have plenty of examples of more effective solutions. I’m not aware of any state that’s “solved” it, but I think more than half of the world are “better” based on objective stats and talking to people who live in those societies (highly subjective based on my experiences).
Funny thing - where I live you are not aloud to take someone’s life even in self defense, if your home is being robbed. E.g. if you wake up to someone in your house going through your things and shoot him with your shotgun you will be charged with murder. With mitigating circumstances, but still murder. Its only when your own life is threatened are you allowed to defend yourself.
Lots of people dislike this, but its actually surprisingly safe to live here, so I guess its effective.
For example, nobody has pulled _any_ weapon on me in my entire life (35 years) and I’ve never seen a drawn gun outside of a range.
And I’m pretty happy that the chances of someone ending my life on purpose (or even accidentally) are astronomically low, I kinda like living.
I pull mine off and throw them in the bin lol