> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
Do they deserve a (potentially harsh) punishment? Yes.
But is it in society's interest not to make them worse than they already are? Also, yes.
So a problem in most countries is that prison is only focused on the punishment part not on the "what happens when people are released?" part.
Now some of the offenders might have chance to integrate back to society...
When people can shoplift bagloads of merchandise without even trying to be stealthy, then casually walk out past a security guard who isn't allowed to do anything, or when they can smash a window and clean out a store under the cover of protests/unrest, it's not surprising that it escalates to more organised theft - whether it's 'flash rob' looting* of stores, or now looting train cargo.
(*As for the now-seemingly-controversial term 'looting' vs stealing/theft/robbery - to me, looting is brazenly grabbing anything/everything, out in the open, often in broad daylight and on camera, while most 'normal' forms of theft are carried out more covertly and perhaps with particular targets in mind). No amount of policing will prevent all theft, but open looting is an sign of lawlessness.
It's easier for techy types to gaff at the risk of highway robbery for a good reason.
Tech seeks to alleviate human labor via automation or semi-automation.
I think people are trying to take the same shortcuts to reduce the friction of human labor. Thievery is a foundational American ideal, romanticized in some sense.
The question most US citizens have been asking is "when do I get mine?".
I think they're finding their own answers.
This doesn't really mean anything. Non-violent crimes range from personal drug use & speeding to ponzi schemes & drunk driving.
There is a difference between theft (a victim exists and can inflict either physical or emotional damage) and something like personal light drug use (mostly victimless).
Theft not only robs a victim of their time & resource but it can also inflict emotional damage. A broken car window means you're out whatever they stole + glass (often a week or more of wages) and the emotional stress & time to fix it. These packages had recipients - the PPE is obviously important but each of these packages could have been someones anniversary gift or important medical device.
If we're talking about the moral severity of the crime itself, theft is pretty close to assault in my book and should be punished accordingly.
We can work on preventing the desperateness that leads to theft while still having strict punishment. What we shouldn't do is not address the root cause AND let such crimes go essentially unpunished.
It seems like it should be possible to use locks which are harder to open in a short amount of time...but I suppose the cost of that would outweigh the current costs of the theft for the railroads.
For example, just thinking out loud, what about some sort of container door hinge mechanism which takes five minutes (or an adjustable amount of time) to open the door?
>> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
>But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
The implied conclusion here is "We're allowing it if people don't guard it like it's ft Knox."
The whole point of a legal system, the codification of crime and law enforcement is to stop things like this. To ensure that people cannot unilaterally and directly harm other people.
Which is precisely what "punishment" does. Try being less vindictive and more understanding about the root circumstances that lead someone to perform an act of desperation.
That's exactly what is being attempted via the theft.
If you are desperate, you steal anything and try to sell it to buy food and hygiene products.
2. ?
3. Most criminals are just poor people scraping by using the only means available to them; veritable street kids stealing a loaf of bread
Honestly, I don't understand this logic at all. Specifically, how people arrive at #3.
But I think the bigger issue is just that you're talking about retrofitting an aspect of the global transport complex. Why would the entire shipping industry change it's approach to standardized containers just to stop some thieves at a specific American spot? The cost of using special containers for this specific route would be prohibitive I imagine, and hard to manage the logistics of.
The only solution is armed escort for trains through slow zones.
Weakest point of entry.
I'd much rather we arrest them so they can be rehabilitated or helped. Which is a separate discussion, but there have to be consequences. Sometimes it's too late to help them and we just need to stem the damage they do to society and other people that are innocent.
This is not what happens when people are arrested.
That said, steal the shots I take for an autoimmune disorder and I'll definitely consider it an assault on my health.
So if you're going to play the "assault on my health" card, the guys robbing trains are literally Robin Hood saving lives.
Yeah, it introduces some problems around chain of custody, counterfeiting...but people who can afford the $300 can continue to pay the retail price.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mylan-nl-pfizer-epipen-id...
Disruption to medicine supply is my concern here, having had supply issues affect a family member where they've had to ration out heart related medication... I'm a little tetchy about it.
If you want to continue the robin hood analogy, well, Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He wasn't selling life saving medicines that may or may not be fake (buyers won't know either way), and may have been improperly handled or stored.
He wasn't potentially killing people who just want to save a few bucks.
Easier to just go to the ER and not pay the bill.
I'm privileged to be able to even consider spending the $3000 (I don't have severe allergies, so haven't actually made this decision). It's not at all ridiculous that someone on a tighter budget would make the same decision if it was $30 vs $300, and might make compromises on the QA. And "just go to the ER" doesn't cut it: regardless of the cost, that could take hours, while you may only have minutes to spare in the case of anaphylactic shock. You take the injection AND go straight to the ER, it's not an either-or thing.
Two shot kits range from $100-$300, depending on whether you are buying genetic or brand name, whether you use goodrx, etc.
Police this.