Some people are going to be bent on stealing enough that not much is going to stop them. A locked door will stop some people; an unlocked door will stop no one.
Pretty sure theft is still theft, even if the door was unlocked. Of course negligence can make it your fault, but even if you find a million dollars on the street - legally - it's not yours.
> I don't deserve any blame if someone broke down my front door to do it.
I mean, you could have gotten a more sturdy door... drawing the boundary between someone opening an unlocked door and breaking down the door is hard; so I'd agree with "even less blame", but if we believe you are ever at blame here, there isn't anything magical about the lock that shifts you from having blame to being blameless.
Just because you fail to lock your door does not authorize a burglar to come into your house and help himself to your stuff. You don't get to beg off responsibility by claiming the injured party made it too easy for you to help yourself.
If someone’s house is robbed because their front door was left unlocked you might admonish them for poor security practices, but no one really debates that the robber was in the wrong and committed a crime.
Hard to say, but it is. When a person leaves their door unlocked and people walk in and rob the place, the thieves are responsible and guilty but the neighbors will cluck their tongues and wonder why someone with perfectly-functioning locks doesn't use them.
That's why a person leaving their house unlocked and getting robbed is used as an (unacceptable) analogy to a person getting sexually assaulted when they walk down the street at night in skimpy clothing. The "Victim could easily have done something more and chose not to" aspect is already taken as a given in the unlocked-door scenario.
One party can make a bad deal, but that doesn't mean the other party isn't immoral for taking that deal, especially when it has substantial negative externalities.
reply