Poll: An unlocked car is stolen, who is to blame?

[Damir Halilovic]

Blaming the thief 100% completely negates any personal responsibility of the owner, which is a very dangerous line to toe.

Rephrase the situation like this: There was no thief, but an escaped zoo monkey got into the car, managed to start the ignition and drove into a river, drowning in the process. Or if that's too unlikely, let's just say he took a dump and smeared it on the wind shield. If you want to make it more gruesome though - let's say the owner left his dog in the car, said monkey opened the door and the dog ran under the bus.

In all of those you now have a 100% "the owner is at fault" scenario. The only difference is that in your hypothetical scenario the other party is presented as more negative than the first, which somehow absolves the first party of any guilt, which is simply not true.

The only truth of the matter is that crime will exist. It existed since the inception of humanity and might as well be the only constant until the heat-death of the universe. So yes, personal responsibility is a huge factor if you want to assign blame in these scenarios.

 

[McElroy]

snip

If it's a question about morals, there is little ambiguity - the thief is the wrong-doer. Would be a shorter thread but it got into places, didn't it? I think the poll in the op already invites this, asking "how much". People are talking about two different things here and similarly we can draw parallels with a million other scenarios.

You say that in a real life situation it's closer to "the car gets stolen or it won't". Okay then, but the moral question is exactly the same with an unlocked bicycle, and there the lock is a major deterrence against possible theft. Taking a risk vs "deserves any outcome", and those overlap after crossing a line that people by and large cannot specify. Unless... well, now I'm starting to repeat myself.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

While you could argue that the thief should not make it their business to appropriate the property of others, certainly from an insurance point of view a company would not pay out on the grounds that the owner had not made sufficient provision for the security of their property. Basically, the rights you have to a piece of property do not replace or supersede the responsibility you have to maintain your property in a safe and secure manner.

And yes, I know that's a very boring answer.

 

[jklinders]

snip

If it's a question about morals, there is little ambiguity - the thief is the wrong-doer. Would be a shorter thread but it got into places, didn't it? I think the poll in the op already invites this, asking "how much". People are talking about two different things here and similarly we can draw parallels with a million other scenarios.

You say that in a real life situation it's closer to "the car gets stolen or it won't". Okay then, but the moral question is exactly the same with an unlocked bicycle, and there the lock is a major deterrence against possible theft. Taking a risk vs "deserves any outcome", and those overlap after crossing a line that people by and large cannot specify. Unless... well, now I'm starting to repeat myself.

Ironically locking a bicycle is a lot more effective than locking a car. I was not making that stuff up about the theft and break in reports my father took. If a quarter is enough incentive to get someone to smash a window then a locked car door is remarkably ineffective. Full blame still on the thief. you are ASSUMING for the purpose of this thought exercise that the thief will not steal the car if the door is locked. That was not a stated condition. And that is exactly where placing any blame on the owner in this thought exercise falls to pieces.

Nice chat. I look forward to your response.

 

[maninahat]

I have some questions for everyone who is saying that only the thief is to blame, and the person leaving the car unlocked is 100% blameless:

1.: How far are you willing to take that line of thinking: If I leave my wallet unattended on the table at the bar, while I go to the restroom, and it gets stolen, would you still say that I am blameless? What if I leave my 5000? bike unlocked on the street for a couple of hours in the worst part of the city? What if I gave 50000? of my savings to a complete stranger and expect it to get back? At what point would you call me an unresponsible moron and that I am to blame for my loss?

Those are all the same as the car with the exception of the last one, which is ambiguous. In all cases, its a person taking what isn't theres who is to blame. We can acknowledge the naivety or poor decision making of the victim, but its explicitly only because of the thief's existence and wrong doing that we can even qualify it as naivety or poor decision making. The last example is ambiguous in that by giving your money to a stranger, you may at least be implicitly telling them that the money is now theirs. If you had made it clear that wasn't the case on handing it over, then it is the exact same as the above examples (a thief and a blameless naif).

2.: Is telling someone to lock their houses doors victim blaming?

Depends how you phrase it. "You were asking to be burgled because you left your house unlocked" would be victim blaming. "I recommend you lock your house as a precaution against burglars" isn't.

 

[Sonmi]

Criminal responsibility and personal responsibility are not the same, you're making a false equivalence.

How so? Is criminal responsibility not based in personal responsibility? If not, then what is it based on?

Criminal responsibility is based in personal responsibility, but not every case of personal irresponsibility is criminally reprehensible.

You're being daft on purpose.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Criminal responsibility is based in personal responsibility, but not every case of personal irresponsibility is criminally reprehensible.

What's the magic separating line then?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Blaming the thief 100% completely negates any personal responsibility of the owner, which is a very dangerous line to toe.

Alright, then what should the owner be charged with if the thief is not 100% responsible?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Well, I've seen noone arguing that not locking ones car is committing a crime.

Yes you are. There are people saying that the thief is not 100% responsible for the crime. Therefore, someone else is committing a crime also.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

It is scary how many people hereblame the car owner for doing nothing wrong. He commited no crime and made noones life harder. what the hell are you blaming him for someone else stealing shit?

Remmeber when people used to leave their houses unlocked? Were they also committing crimes?

It's not even that edgy really. I've asked the same questions here to people IRL who sing that "well, the guy who was robbed should have some responsibility in it too". I leave em stammering or re-thinking every time.

 

[McElroy]

You are ASSUMING for the purpose of this thought exercise that the thief will not steal the car if the door is locked. That was not a stated condition. And that is exactly where placing any blame on the owner in this thought exercise falls to pieces.

I'm just being cold and unempathetic with a bit of schadenfreude. If something is stolen the thief is to blame, that doesn't mean I always would - depending on given information and/or the concurrent angle of Saturn - have empathy for the victim. Like the Persian store-owner in Crash. He's a bit sympathetic but not much.

This train of thought is going in circles. I think most people have laid out their reasoning quite well and as is customary on the Internet, we do know where everyone stands on the matter but try anyway to somehow get them caught in a slightly different argument for some Imaginary Butt Clench Points. Anyway, that's not you (and I don't even mean most posters do that). You only wanted to say that the OP is asking the wrong questions. It's hard if not impossible to simply rearrange an ongoing discussion like that.

 

[cleric of the order]

there are places in this world where you don't have to lock your car.
my dad is from Jamaica and he talked about, it's great not having to put bars on your windows, arm yourself, have big dogs and lock everything behind a gate.
it's great not to be listening for the sound of a switchblade sliding open on the streets and it's great not to have police who are directly criminal
i like living in canada

 

[Sonmi]

Criminal responsibility is based in personal responsibility, but not every case of personal irresponsibility is criminally reprehensible.

What's the magic separating line then?

Malice, mostly the fact that you're affecting others in one case and mostly yourself in the other, and the criminal code.

By willingly leaving his car unlock, as is the case with the hypothetical OP, presumably because he thinks it's more convenient, he's willingly taking a risk for himself, perfectly legal, but still irresponsible.

Being stupid is not illegal, but it's still being stupid.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Criminal responsibility is based in personal responsibility, but not every case of personal irresponsibility is criminally reprehensible.

What's the magic separating line then?

Malice, mostly the fact that you're affecting others in one case and mostly yourself in the other, and the criminal code.

By willingly leaving his car unlock, as is the case with the hypothetical OP, presumably because he thinks it's more convenient, he's willingly taking a risk for himself, perfectly legal, but still irresponsible.

Being stupid is not illegal, but it's still being stupid.

Then why assign him a percentage of responsibility in the crime? And if you believe that, why do you not advocate for a change in the criminal code to reflect that?

 

[Sonmi]

Criminal responsibility is based in personal responsibility, but not every case of personal irresponsibility is criminally reprehensible.

What's the magic separating line then?

Malice, mostly the fact that you're affecting others in one case and mostly yourself in the other, and the criminal code.

By willingly leaving his car unlock, as is the case with the hypothetical OP, presumably because he thinks it's more convenient, he's willingly taking a risk for himself, perfectly legal, but still irresponsible.

Being stupid is not illegal, but it's still being stupid.

Then why assign him a percentage of responsibility in the crime? And if you believe that, why do you not advocate for a change in the criminal code to reflect that?

Because he facilitated the crime in the same way that someone sending his credit card information to a Nigerian prince is facilitating his own identity theft, or that, in a more extreme example, someone who accepts to transport a package from a stranger across a border is facilitating being potentially turned into a drug mule.

EDIT: Or, if we were to use a more recent example, a certain neo-Nazi facilitated getting assaulted by an anti-fascist protester by spouting hateful rhetoric.

I do not believe in a change in the criminal code because these victims only really affect themselves, and are not acting immorally/maliciously in any case, simply irresponsibly.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I don't believe anyone was talking about faulting for someone for experiencing a thought. Do you know why I don't act on my thoughts of hitting people or taking stuff? Because I don't want to. I wouldn't want to get punched in the face. So I don't punch people in the face. I wouldn't want to have my shit stolen. So I don't steal shit. It's not locks that keep people honest, it's empathy. If you think I'm the type of person who would shame people for having a shadow, you need to see my media collection.

First of all, I was making a general point, I never intended to imply you specifically would shame people or anything.


Now, with that out of the way. What you describe is the thing I mentioned. You act not because you don't have the desire to steal but because doing so has consequences, be it in that you may get punched or put to jail or your conduct may contribute to a society such that one day you may have something of yours stolen. This is what I was illustrating as well. The desire is there and if you knew that your stealing something would actually influence nothing negatively (for example, you stole a bike which would otherwise be forgotten where you found it until it rusted and was collected by the garbage collectors) then you'd be fine with it.

What we judge on is based on those who do vs those who do not steal. Honestly, whatever reasoning you use to not do something is insignificant for as long as it succeeds at preventing you from going with your desire.


The issue is that people who do not fail at not doing something tend to sometimes be treated as though they did do it, and the reasoning the people who shame them use is that "they shouldn't even have the desire to do that thing in the first place", that merely having the desire means they're bad people, which is basically shaming people for thought crimes. We see this all the time when racism is brought up for example, where people may not actually discriminate in their daily lives but as long as they have certain notions they're basically as good as a KKK member in the eyes of some people.


We have to avoid the trap of shaming people who have done nothing wrong, no matter what we feel about their thoughts.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

They owner might be an idiot, or just careless. Maybe they are sick and forgot to lock it? Maybe in a hurry? Depressing? An accident happened? A million reasons why they could have forgotten to lock the door.

There is no real reason to steal a car... permanently. I could see someone doing it temporarily for some reason that would make it kinda okay-ish in my eyes, but absolutely no blame lies on the owner.

Being stupid or careless or distracted does not mean it's okay to steal that person's belongings.

 

[Thurston]

Imagine a lone elderly man, nearly blind, mostly deaf, hobbling along with his walker, in a place with no witnesses, no cameras, and you with a perfect alibi. His wallet, hanging out of his pocket, has a sheaf of unmmarked, untraceable used bills almost falling out. You could, walk quietly up behind him, snatch the bills from him, and be far away before he realized anything had happened. He is incredibly wealthy, by ethical and legal means, so the theft of the money will have no significant effect on his life, but could not be used to right any wrong he has done. It is the opportunity for a perfect crime.

If you take the money, have you done something wrong?

YES. YOU ARE A THIEF! YOU STOLE SOMETHING! NO MATTER HOW EASY CIRCUMSTANCE MADE IT FOR YOU!