🇯🇵 Major crime in the news in Japan
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (71)
sorted by:
It doesn't matter how much you steal, it matters that you steal.
This is exactly what has led to the moral decline of the West. You think: well, it's just 50 cents, so I guess stealing isn't all that bad. When this sets in motion the slippery slope, the undefeated champion, up to the point that thefts of up to $950 are tolerated in California.
Churchill once asked a woman if she'd have sex with him for a million pounds. She said yes. Then he asked if she'd do it for 10 pounds. She said, why, do you think I'm a whore? And he said: Ma'am, we've already established what you are, now we're haggling over the price. And this is what you're doing. You have basically stated that it's OK to steal what you regard as small sums, and now you're haggling with California over how much it's OK to steal.
Stealing grapes: yes, people shouldn't be putting their disgusting paws on food to begin with. That's worse than stealing.
Jaywalking isn't a crime anywhere outside of America (that I'm aware of), so that's just uncommon silliness.
Is what happened to this guy draconian? Well, yeah. Was it undeserved? No. Having a functioning society has a price, and I'd rather that people like this pay the price than to have my city turned into Chicago.
I actually agree. But then you also agree there should be punishment. Not like some people on this thread who think he just should have to pay what he had refused - that is not punishment.
I joined Reddit for GG.
Do you think it is 'bloodlust'? Or is it that having any sort of functioning society requires that some, generally malefactors, be screwed over? Do you know what used to happen to girls who got pregnant out of wedlock in a place like Ireland? Pretty unpleasant things. Which is why that was rare.
Context, cost and scale are important for determining degrees of punishment.
You're correct that ALL crimes need punishment to deter even simple infractions, but the context of the crime and the scale of the punishment need to be doled out in respect to the cost it has on society when it comes to stability and maintaining cultural consistency.
In short, the context was over something minor (i.e., coffee), the cost of which was also minor (less than $5) while the scale of punishment was more than what was taken, and a potentially greater detriment to the man's life than what crime he had committed.
The whole point of punishment is that it's supposed to be disproportionate. If I steal $5 and get fined $5, that is not much of a deterrence or righting of the moral scales. It doesn't need to be draconian, but it has to be much greater than the amount that has been stolen.
I see a lot of suggestions that "it's not a big deal because it is a small amount". Now, is it preferable to live in a society where stealing is OK or at least not as much frowned upon if it's theft of small amounts? Also: if it's such a small amount, why did he bother stealing it?
I agree his punishment was too severe, but the guy was also the principle. It would be different if he was a student.