??? Petty crime by any reasonable definition is an inferior good, above a (not actually all that large) income people stop doing it. It's not entirely clear how punishing it harder is actually going to help until you actually help the truly desperate. Now, once you do and the only people left shoplifting have no claim to any kind of "well I had to because I couldn't afford <necessity>" then you can bring the wrath of god down on it.
It seems like nowadays 'punishing at all' is a serious issue. If the police say they won't show up for theft under a certain dollar amount they've basically made it legal to steal up to that amount.
>"until you actually help the truly desperate"
Food banks and welfare programs exist. I feel like sympathetic people are ignoring the fact that some people realize they can do illegal things because it gives them an advantage, not solely because there is no other option.
We can talk about honor and the nobility of suffering or whatever your catholic school taught you but the reality is that humans need a certain level of comfort before they stop doing things that are considered desperate acts to get there. You steal the stuff you can't afford that gives you comfort and puts you ahead enough that you still have money to make rent. Things like laptops, phones, tvs, video games have a high comfort/risk ratio and significantly raise your tolerance to the shittiness of the rest of your life.
If the question is "when is theft permissible" most people aren't going to agree that stealing "laptops, phones, tvs, video games" is okay because it will make the thief feel better about how shitty their life is.
You either deal with this or will forever be demonizing the very people you want to help because they're not behaving in the way you've decided they should to be worthy of sympathy.
I'm not demonizing anyone and this choice of words shows a gross misunderstanding of how most people feel about theft.
>"because they're not behaving in the way you've decided they should to be worthy of sympathy."
What's so wrong about this? I can definitely lose sympathy for someone who makes the choice to break the law and harm others when they could have chosen a non-violent alternative that would have probably helped the more. When that happens they should face consequences, be judged, and hopefully be rehabilitated.
My three assumptions here are that some people are starving, stealing to eat is the canonical excusable crime, and that 'just get a job' is not a solution. If you disagree with any of those, then that's your opinion but we have nothing further to discuss as we start from a different premise.
You're absolutely correct, we disagree on premises about the world. Have a wonderful day, I'm sorry for what amounts to a nonsensical response on my part.
Did a double take on this one. There are plenty of scenarios where stealing is honorable.
And overdue rent is what happens when you make bad decisions like spending your money on drugs and alcohol
Have any of you ever even been in dire straits? Because those of us who have are not as tolerant and that’s not meaningless
It's wild how people who people who've never experienced being poor don't get economics of it. You don't steal food, that's stupid because the risk/reward is terrible, when your phone breaks you steal the iPhone because that takes $1000 off your budget.
I tried to bake that idea into the phrasing but it clearly didn't land.