Larceny, where do you draw the line?

[Charlieb1212]

On Tuesday nights I have a class from 6:00 to 8:45, and it doesn't ever get out early. A guy left my class around 8:00 because he said he had to go pick up his sister. Come to find out, he was arrested for stealing over $200 worth of items from the local Wal-Mart.

What happened? He spent a couple hours at the police department and was released with a petit larceny charge.

Should he not be jailed for a while? If I had a say in the matter I would be pulling for serious jail time.

Although it may not be fair to relate the two things, you can show that he isn't against committing crimes for personal gain, and with such little reprimand, he could commit a violent crime next.

Should we wait for that to happen before locking him up? I think not, especially when he's been arrested for something that I (and most?) think is jail worthy.


Might just be some incoherent rambling, if you have any thoughts, please share. If not, I got my thoughts out of my head.

- Charlie

 

[Clashfan]

I think that most people would say "serious jail time" over $200 is a bit extreme.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

There is a big difference in someone stealing from a department store and breaking into someone's house and stealing things. He shouldn't get a pass on the $200 theft by any means, but what is the point in tying up countless tax payer dollars in something like that? More than likely, he had a lapse in judgment and being caught and arrested will snap him back into place.

 

[Charlieb1212]

There is a big difference in someone stealing from a department store and breaking into someone's house and stealing things. He shouldn't get a pass on the $200 theft by any means, but what is the point in tying up countless tax payer dollars in something like that? More than likely, he had a lapse in judgment and being caught and arrested will snap him back into place.

Theft is theft.
What if it doesn't snap him back into place? We wait for the next crime? I don't think that's a very good idea. Not a risk worth taking, rather waste taxpayers money as opposed to putting people in danger.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Theft is theft.
What if it doesn't snap him back into place? We wait for the next crime? I don't think that's a very good idea. Not a risk worth taking, rather waste taxpayers money as opposed to putting people in danger.

Theft is, in most cases, a nonviolent crime. Stealing from a department store such as Walmart is much different than busting down someone's door and stealing all of their worldly possessions. It doesn't make it right, but they are on completely different planes of severity. Imposing serious jail time on nonviolent crimes would be a major deterrent, I don't think anybody in the right mind would argue that.. but is it worth it? The taxpayer dollars have to come from somewhere you know. If we put that money into punishing a nonviolent offender it could come from public education funds, or funds that go to highway systems, or even government assistance programs. Is the trade off worth it? I think the majority would say not. The person didn't just get off free.. It will more than likely go to court where he could either be sentenced to prison time, put on probation, or even fined a pretty hefty amount (probably a combination).

 

[Divine_God]

You are making this a bigger deal than it really is. Your logic is that he has done X so he Will or most Probably will do Y. When yes, they correlate because they are both crimes, but assuming because someone has done one thing doesn't mean that they will do something else.


Obviously he should be punished for the crimes he has committed, but not punished on the basis that he will commit crimes in the future.

 

It's been historically proven that once a person commits and is convicted of a crime in the United states of America, they will continue such habits indefinitely.

I do not find that such a crime deserves time in jail, as ultimately, they are not remorseful of their actions. Once or again one may be pulled in by their peers in an act similar to this, but in any occasion it wouldn't happen again regardless. The consequences are made aware to them, but they chose this path aside.

Small crimes, in my personal opinion, are not as bad as the media has made them to be. It is more of a moral and ethic decision than anything. If you are behind someone and they drop an item of $300 wealth, it's not only a legality decision, but also moral. The line between morality and legality is formed at childhood, which is why those raised in rather unfortunate circumstances often are lead down the wrong path in life. These individuals are not as much at fault by themselves, but at fault as a whole. They have not only let down themselves, but society as a whole. This shows how corrupt and ineducationable the system is, and how so much is needed to change.

While crime is crime, every circumstance is different. Was a five-year old stealing a candy bar, or was a team of 5 highly trained thieves breaking into a bank vault? The situations may also appear identical. Two 17-year old women are caught stealing an item worth $250 from a local shopping mall. One was stealing this item to impress a boyfriend, while the other was going to sell the item to afford to keep her apartment for another month, because she had finally just escaped the holds of her sexually abuse parents.
It's a whole different ballgame then, isn't it? The law is a complicated and circumstantial thing, and judgements are made often and too swiftly.

 

[Noam]

It was a petty crime. $200 means that the man probably had to pay bail to be able to leave before trial. He may even go to ail for a week at most. That is a fitting punishment from the legal sense

 

[Charlieb1212]

You are making this a bigger deal than it really is. Your logic is that he has done X so he Will or most Probably will do Y. When yes, they correlate because they are both crimes, but assuming because someone has done one thing doesn't mean that they will do something else.


Obviously he should be punished for the crimes he has committed, but not punished on the basis that he will commit crimes in the future.

I'm keeping my posts short to preserve sanity while typing on my iPad, but I'll try to be as thorough as possible.

I wouldn't consider that to be my logic, although committing crimes is often related to serial killers starting out killing animals, I won't make the comparison in this case. My reasoning is that he has the mindset that it's not THAT bad to commit crimes and he certainly isn't against it. I don't think he should get off with a couple fines and some community service, because to me, that isn't punishment, or not punishment that fits the situation. A more serious punishment, or possibly even a non-traditional punishment is needed, to get it in his head that he cannot get off Scott-free after performing these criminal acts. Why are we going to wait for him to commit a more serious crime before providing an equally serious punishment that will let him realize where he's going and set an example?

I only hope the prosecuting attorney and judge have the same mindset.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

I'm keeping my posts short to preserve sanity while typing on my iPad, but I'll try to be as thorough as possible.

I wouldn't consider that to be my logic, although committing crimes is often related to serial killers starting out killing animals, I won't make the comparison in this case. My reasoning is that he has the mindset that it's not THAT bad to commit crimes and he certainly isn't against it. I don't think he should get off with a couple fines and some community service, because to me, that isn't punishment, or not punishment that fits the situation. A more serious punishment, or possibly even a non-traditional punishment is needed, to get it in his head that he cannot get off Scott-free after performing these criminal acts. Why are we going to wait for him to commit a more serious crime before providing an equally serious punishment that will let him realize where he's going and set an example?

I only hope the prosecuting attorney and judge have the same mindset.

Where does that line of thought end though? Are we going to start throwing the book at people who jay walk? By your logic, this person would go onto commit more serious offences, it's only a matter of time. Not every case is clear cut, and the prosecutors and cops probably realize that.

 

[Clashfan]

Why are we going to wait for him to commit a more serious crime before providing an equally serious punishment

Because for a punishment to be just it should be proportionate to the crime.

 

[Goatse Marathon]

It's been stated before, but there's a large difference between people that commit petty larceny and those who commit assault. From personal experience, and growing up in a rough neighborhood, people who steal from stores are a different breed than those that steal from homes or people. Those who choose to steal from stores are, on a typical basis, cowardly, and more than anything, afraid of confrontation.

A little off-topic, but you have visited the Market section of Sythe, I presume. That is what typically draws people to this website. In doing such, you have broken many rules listed on the Runescape website. That being said, and using your logic, it's safe to say that you'd break a law in real life, right? You've broken rules online (X) so you're likely to break a law in real life (Y) (in the sense that Divine_God set forth).

As far as charges for the guy in your class goes, I think that if it is his first offense, he should receive a slap on the wrist, just like everyone else. He could be starving. You don't know what this guy is going through. You don't know where he comes from or how he was raised. You really shouldn't be so quick to point a finger and "pull for jail time" without knowing what his life is like. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[Jimmy]

Why are we going to wait for him to commit a more serious crime before providing an equally serious punishment that will let him realize where he's going and set an example?

Because you can't punish people for crimes they haven't committed.

Theft is theft.
What if it doesn't snap him back into place? We wait for the next crime? I don't think that's a very good idea. Not a risk worth taking, rather waste taxpayers money as opposed to putting people in danger.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

 

[Noam]

It's been stated before, but there's a large difference between people that commit petty larceny and those who commit assault. From personal experience, and growing up in a rough neighborhood, people who steal from stores are a different breed than those that steal from homes or people. Those who choose to steal from stores are, on a typical basis, cowardly, and more than anything, afraid of confrontation.

A little off-topic, but you have visited the Market section of Sythe, I presume. That is what typically draws people to this website. In doing such, you have broken many rules listed on the Runescape website. That being said, and using your logic, it's safe to say that you'd break a law in real life, right? You've broken rules online (X) so you're likely to break a law in real life (Y) (in the sense that Divine_God set forth).

As far as charges for the guy in your class goes, I think that if it is his first offense, he should receive a slap on the wrist, just like everyone else. He could be starving. You don't know what this guy is going through. You don't know where he comes from or how he was raised. You really shouldn't be so quick to point a finger and "pull for jail time" without knowing what his life is like. That's just my opinion, though.

That may be true, but the law broken in real life is significantly more likely to be white-collar than it would be with someone commiting larceny. The repeat offense of a commuter of larceny is much more likely to commit violent crime the second, third, or fourth time around, n=than your average syther, who will probably steal PS or something.

 

[oxodium]

I think that most people would say "serious jail time" over $200 is a bit extreme.

Think there was a post were somebody was jailed over 7 cents or something like that? a week back, but yes I do believe $200 does not account for 'serious jail time'

Community service, and a hefty fine.

 

[N01s PeRfecT]

Because for a punishment to be just it should be proportionate to the crime.

And because the man in question may still be useful to society.
You probably know very little about him and his life situation.

Would your thoughts change if you found out that his whole motivation for stealing the items from walmart was so he could then take it to the local pawnshop to raise money to feed his forementioned little sister?

Everything is relevant.