🇯🇵 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:
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.
I don't give a damn about 'the law' - look at the moral character of those who make them. I've never followed any speed limit. Jaywalking and speeding are not moral matters, unless you're going 200 km/hour where it's unsafe.
There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society. The law against stealing would be law. On the other hand, a ban on gas stoves is legislation. If you define the terms in this way, law is worthy of respect and legislation is not.
Yes, I don't understand why you're explaining this. Although this guy was a repeat offender.
Before he gets to me, he'd have to kill 95% of the population first, so I'm relatively safe.
In fact, I used it today. What about the word 'nigger'? I hope I've never given the impression that I care about ridiculous liberal-American sensitivities.
I never argued that I was a 'darling' of the left. Considering the things that make them cheer, I hope not.
It's long abandoned.
That's a big issue, isn't it? They have an aversion to any sort of punishment - except for their political opponents. If you know Robert Sapolsky, the allegedly eminent biologist, in one of his books he argues that humans do not have free will, and that ideally, people who commit crimes would be segregated from society in such a way that they would not feel as punishment. Quite apart from the moral wrong that this is, only a total fool would believe that this has no anti-deterrent effect.
With all this said, I do understand where you're coming from. But what I don't understand is how you can be so certain and confident that where you decide to draw the line is good, and the people allowing stealing up to $950 are wrong. I can easily see them make the same argument for that, though they never make arguments based on any moral foundation, let alone that of the Western world.
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?
That's true.
That's correct.
I agree his punishment was too severe, but the guy was also the principle. It would be different if he was a student.