Obviously theft is not a long-term solution. Being a lowlife is no way to live. There are people working the skin off their bones on two jobs just to barely live. And some entitled shmuck wants the easy way out?
People can reasonably be excused for theft when they are trying to meet their needs. Somebody who steals because they're at the poverty line and are trying to keep a roof over their head and food on their children's plate deserves sympathy.
But when people have their needs met, are above the poverty line with a decent job that pays the bills, and they still steal because "inequality" makes them jealous and greedy, they don't deserve sympathy. Most people in such a condition don't become theives, they either content themselves with what they have or they try to better their condition through some honest means, like seeking better job training or political advocacy for social change. The ones who respond by turning to crime (usually targetting other common people living in similar conditions as themselves) are antisocials who need to have the book thrown at them. The reason they're stealing packages instead of robbing banks or spending their time looking for a better job is because porch theft is easy and low risk. If penalties and enforcement were increased, theft rates would drop.
Realistically, somebody who is the victim of petty theft is not responsible for the circumstances that led somebody to become a thief. Expecting people who were robbed to feel ashamed that they were robbed is absurd. They are a victim. Not to mention that most people do not have the resources to relocate themselves to a country with less crime. Greggman expecting these people to feel ashamed that they have been unable to flee their country is worse than absurd; it is patently offensive.
If the thief can be said to be a victim of circumstance and therefore not responsible for their actions, then the same can be said even more strongly of their victims.
>An ex-convict has very few options for employment after they've served their time, so it's unsurprising that many need to steal for their survival
This trope has little to do with the recent spate of property crimes that spiked right after criminal penalties were removed. These are not desperate people, but rather people who willfully and repeatedly exploit an opportunity to harm others without punishment.
“doing poor people things (stealing to stay alive or pay rent). No sympathy for WalMart from me.”
No sympathy for you from me. There will always be people on both sides of the spectrum. There’s people who work hard to pay rent without resorting to criminality. In fact this is more common than your characterization that if you’re poor you steal, or as you call it “poor people things”. What an insult to those people.
I suppose you condone the gross shoplifting and then the slippery slope to committing felonies.
I dislike that kind of attitude towards the poor, it's infantilizing and strips people of their agency, it's like the modern "noble savage", just some others who are pure of heart and can only be corrupted by the evil influence of the system.
I've been dirt poor, I've been homeless, I've been alone in a foreign country with no one to turn to, I've lived in such shit places that my neighbour got shot down with an AK not 100 meters from my doorstep ... in Europe. I still didn't steal.
There are systemic issues which keep people down, that doesn't excuse immoral and illegal behaviour. I've known a lot of criminals, they're by and large scumbags, not some modern robinhoods stealing for the sake of their family because of capitalism.
But they don’t steal food they steal TVs and power tools or cars. It’s a lifestyle not a survival mechanism. When I was poor I stole food so I wouldn’t go hungry. I never stole money or robbed people… those are just lame excuses that allow them to keep committing crime.
> There's no community well-being here to preserve, they are stealing and profiting.
I agree that they're stealing and profiting from someone else's resources but there is a community cost to someone receiving a criminal record or worse for a relatively minor crime. And was it a friend's son or someone else only a few degrees of association away?
They should be punished if they continue after being warned but when the punishment exceeds the grade of the crime, anyone concerned about community would stop to ponder the cost-benefit of reporting the thieves. What we should have is punishments that better suit the severity of the crime, like community service.
In the Everyone Wins category: the thieves apologise, return the remaining walnuts and any money made, and offer to help the owner tend to their house and garden. Alternatively they can sell the walnuts on the owners behalf, generating money without having to pay for labour. In the everybody loses category: you strip someone of their ability to get certain jobs due to a criminal record and they turn to more crime to make up for the shortfall in income. Or you send them to jail and rather than having a well-tended-to garden your tax dollars are paying to have a harmless thief in prison.
Have you so little respect for people that you think they are all thieves? In India and China, countries in which most of the top 10% by income would fall below the US poverty line most people never steal. Theft is not mostly about poverty.
The problem with thieving and murdering is generally considered to be the one presented by the people who's property or lives are unwillingly taken from them.
You are building the assumption that the thieves are super-poor and starving.
Food distribution is already very good for the poor and hungry.
It is possible some of these thieves are just down on their luck. But when there are zero consequences to stealing, many folks will just steal in order to get more stuff/make more money.
You seem to believe the world is populated by nice, well-meaning people who would never steal were they not hungry.
They aren't hungry at all. Your view is just incredibly naive.
Everybody has the right to a achieve a decent life, yes, I'm not advocating giving a Mercedes Benz to any street bum. But the former is becoming harder and harder these days solely because all resources are in the hands of the few who do not contribute anything, risk nothing and take in more and more.
And I advocate robbing anyone? No, I advocate pointing the finger to the robbers instead. I withdraw the benefit of the doubt I have given you earlier, you are very unreasonable and dogmatic in your views. Look around you from time to time, you're going to see a lot more people failing who should have not, hard working people with good work ethic.
Including the businesses that don’t want to be robbed, looted or have to pay into a protection racket. So those who are forced to stay have no way of making an honest living.
The notion that poverty causes crime rather than crime causes poverty is a great disservice to the poor.
Yeah stealing food so that you can sell it on the black market lol.
Most poor people are not thieves, they are decent hardworking people and don't want to be associated with crime thank you very much. Stop glamourising theft
If you believe people in any circumstance morally deserve to have their property stolen by threat of bodily harm (or even without) you're a pretty sad excuse for a human being.
I guess it would be better if tourism didn't exist and rural Mexico continued being cripplingly poor?
I've never heard of a squatter with a job
They can work like decent human beings, and if they prefer to pray on innocent people, they should be incarcerated.
reply