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

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

The thief is still a criminal, but the owner is not blameless. I see two separate misdeeds.

What should the owner be charged with and what sentence should he/she receive?

He should be laughed at whenever he tells someone what happened.

Seems to be a pretty light sentence for being involved in high dollar theft, wouldn't you say?

 

[veloper]

The thief is still a criminal, but the owner is not blameless. I see two separate misdeeds.

What should the owner be charged with and what sentence should he/she receive?

He should be laughed at whenever he tells someone what happened.

Seems to be a pretty light sentence for being involved in high dollar theft, wouldn't you say?

Not really. It's a proportional response to someone being willfully careless with his own stuff.
On top of that, the owner already lost the car, as reality took care of that. If the thief ever gets caught, then someone can get sentenced for theft, but that's a separate case.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If theft is the normal state of affairs and the owner is aware of it, the owner. If theft is a bizarre accident which almost never happens, the thief.


The key question is "how likely is it for an unlocked car to be stolen". If, despite knowing the likelihood is very high, you allow your car to be unlocked out of some mistaken sense of arbitrary human morality of "stealing is wrong" then you are an idiot who doesn't realize the limited scope of social contract when in a world that doesn't have mind control.


It's kinda like why letting your kids walk to school by themselves in broad daylight is fine but letting them walk at night in the middle of a red light district would likely net you in jail for child abandonment/endangerment. The same laws apply in both stretches of road but it's not quiiiite that simple.

It's like when we blame parents for letting their daughters go to college knowing the high college rape numbers...oh wait

Unless the daughter is some kind of exception, she'd be an adult by the time she is in college so it'd be her choice, not the parent's. Not blaming them when their daughter is an adult who makes her own choices is obviously the normal reaction.

We don't blame the daughter either. Do you?

No, since merely going to college isn't the same as being raped and if a woman knows the statistics and chooses to go then it is logical to assume she is ready to protect herself more so than someone who might be ignorant.

I in general wouldn't blame people for merely taking some risk in their life since almost nothing is safe and you can't spend your life inside a tank just to be safe. The issue is how big of a risk it is you're taking. Merely going to college isn't particularly risky. Doing things like college parties and drinking alcohol and stuff is where most of the rapes occur and you can go to college and do none of that stuff just fine.

Ok, so you only victim blame if the girl willingly goes to a party?

Again, not every party is the same kind of party and not everyone who goes to a party behaves in the same way. You keep trying to apply a broad structure to very specific irresponsible things that ought be avoided and are common sense. Going to a party is fine just like going to college is fine. Even if you go to a party if you are not irresponsible the risk is low enough to make the outing reasonable.

When it starts being too risky to be worth it is if you for example go to a party hosted by someone you don't know, without any friends or people you know that can help you if something happens, and then drink to a stupor (which in general is irresponsible and no matter what you do while drunk you will be blamed for it). After a certain point, you are taking dumb risks that as a logical person you should have been smart enough not to take. Weather you actually get raped or not is besides the point, you still are irresponsible for behaving thus and that is the issue.

 

[K12]

I keep noticing a common misunderstanding that's causing a lot of tension here. Basically the idea that accusing someone of negligence somehow makes the perpetrator less guilty. The original question is party to blame for this, I'd say, since it portrays this as a zero-sum dilemma where the thief and the victim somehow have to share the blame, rather than a dilemma where the thief is a reprehensible criminal regardless of how foolish the victim was acting. It's okay to call the victim foolish, irresponsible, or downright idiotic (based on context). It's not excusing the thief or stating that it's sometimes okay to steal cars.

This is totally it. I think the misconception is that the amount of blame to be proportioned out will always add up to 100% which entails that if the person who leaves the car unlocked is 10% to blame then the criminal could only be 90% to blame rather than 100%. You could potentially argue that the perpetrator has committed a less egregious act because it was opportunistic rather than pre-meditated but that's a separate issue and doesn't follow necessarily.

If somebody is murdered by two people simultaneously (say two separate people both shoot someone at the same time leaving two separate fatal wounds) then they are both 100% guilty of murder not each 50% guilty of murder. It's the actions and intentions that matter most when it comes to blame, not the chain of causality.

If I poison my friend's food with a slow acting poison and he eats it but ends up choking to death on the last piece of the meal before the poison can take effect then am I guilty of murder or attempted murder?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Why should all the criminal blame be on the thief if he's only partially at fault by your own admission?

Because he's (the car owner) already being handed a punishment that's proportionate with what he did wrong.

He didn't lock his car. That is proportionate with a bit of harmless ridicule, and the grievance of loosing your car.

The car thief on the other hand did something illegal, under his own volition. And since he did the illegal component in this whole series of event (actually stealing the car), he deserves the punishment proportionate with his action (jailtime, and a taser to the bollocks, if you ask be, because you don't steal another dudes car. That's just not cool).

EDIT:
I guess my view is affected by me being Danish, because I don't see this as "one case" (why would you even look at it as one case?), but rather "two cases".

Case 1:
Silly goose forgot to lock his car, which allowed a car-thief to steal it.

Punishment: Harmless Ridicule

Case 2:
Dickhead car-thief steals a car.

Punishment (if in Denmark, and a first time offender): 14 days of jail.

 

[jklinders]

100% of the blame for the theft is on the one who committed it. it's not like the owner did anything at all to compel the thief to steal it.

Years back an acquaintance of mine was mugged. He was paying more attention to his phone than his surroundings. The area he was in was not the safest. His lack of situational awareness does not change the fact that he was knocked over, had his phone stolen and roughed up. My complete situational awareness and caution only just kept me from being attacked in that same area during the 12 years I lived there on a couple of occasions. Had that attention failed i would still blame the attacker rather than myself. Just because it's a good idea to exercise basic cautions to avoid being the victim of a crime does not absolve the criminal if those cautions are not exercised. Thinking otherwise is pretty fucking contemptible in my opinion.

 

[Tanis]

Isn't it a bit like blaming the rape victim because s/he was drunk/wearing a short skirt?

Sure, doing something stupid (like getting drunk without your friends or leaving your car unlocked) is...well...stupid.
BUT...it ISN'T ILLEGAL.

There's an old saying that goes 'locks are there to keep honest men honest'.
I NEVER liked that saying because it's so fucking cynical about honest/decent people.

:/

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Obama?

 

[DementedSheep]

I always find breaking these questions down into a percentage odd. A thief who steals an unlocked car isn't any less responsible for their actions than one who steals a locked and alarmed car and it makes no difference to how the crime should be viewed or the punishment for it. However that doesn't mean the owner is blameless in the loss of the car if they intentionally left it unlocked. This is why an insurance company won't and shouldn't be expected to cover it.

 

[gorfias]

My dad, a lawyer, used to ask me if you're buying groceries and the clerk neglects to charge you for a loaf of bread, who owns the loaf. The store. You didn't buy it. Getting away with something is not = to lawful assumption.

 

[one squirrel]

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?

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

 

[Story]

Sure, I'll bite.

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?

Very far, but to be fair I am an idealistic person. Simply put anyone with mal intent is to blame according to my values. With that in mind: 1a: Yes, person should not have stolen the money as it was not his to take, stupity on your part does not resolve the malicious intent of the thief. Opportunity does not excuse cruelty. 1b: Same answer no matter what the amount. My friend also said would I steal money on the table if it was a million dollars? I said it's still not mine so no. 1c: Again same answer for the bike, personally given the area I wouldn't blame you but I wouldn't be upset if others called you stupid for doing it. 1d: This is more gray but still the same answer, If you gave it and expected it back that person should have given it back to you. Oh so long as you communicated that clearly to him of course. If you did and he doesn't It shows how dishonest that person is. If you didn't and he did well then there you go I would blame you but for not commicating that clearly enough for that person. I would also question why you would do that in the first place as that is a very far out there situation. 1e: Hard to say, probably if you were in a situation were someone wouldn't try to screw you over just because (like half of that last question). Self harm without another person maybe? Your guess is as good as mine over what kind of situation that would be.

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

No, because no incident has taken place yet so there is no victim. I see it instead as good advice. If they don't take that advice and someone brakes into their house well, I'd quicker blame the thief and sorry for the home owner for their folly. The thief impeded on the rights of someone else and so committed the crime. Nothing would have happened if the homeowner didn't lock the door and the thief did nothing.

I guess it's obvious I'm a sucker but eh whatever. I like being empathic.

Edited:
Clearifyed some answers.

 

[one squirrel]

Sure, I'll bite.

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?

Very far, but to be fair I am an idealistic person. Simply put anyone with mal intent is to blame according to my values. With that in mind: 1a: Yes, person should not have stolen the money as it was not his to take, stupity on your part does not resolve the malicious intent of the thief. Opportunity does not excuse cruelty. 1b: Same answer no matter what the amount. My friend also said would I steal money on the table if it was a million dollars? I said it's still not mine so no. 1c: Again same answer for the bike, personally given the area I wouldn't blame you but I wouldn't be upset if others called you stupid for doing it. 1d: This is more gray but still the same answer, If you gave it and expected it back that person should have given it back to you. It shows how dishonest that person is. 1e: Hard to say, probably if you were in a situation were someone wouldn't try to screw you over just because. Self harm without another person maybe? Your guess is as good as mine over what kind of situation that would be.

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

No, because no incident has taken place yet so there is no victim. I see it instead as good advice. If they don't take that advice and someone brakes into their house well, I'd quicker blame the thief and sorry for the home owner for their folly. The thief impeded on the rights of someone else and so committed the crime. Nothing would have happened if the homeowner didn't lock the door and the thief did nothing.

I guess it's obvious I'm a sucker but eh whatever. I like being empathic.

Thanks for your extensive response. Seems like you are willing to bite the bullet and really stick to the "only the thief is to blame" for all my examples. I cannot imagine how one would apply that amount of leniency in real life, but I'll take you at your word there.

Your stance on the topic of rape seems to be quite reasonable, so I am not inclined to attack you unduly, but would you consider telling a woman not to get too drunk in order to avoid a possible rape victim blaming?

 

[Story]

Sure, I'll bite.

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?

Very far, but to be fair I am an idealistic person. Simply put anyone with mal intent is to blame according to my values. With that in mind: 1a: Yes, person should not have stolen the money as it was not his to take, stupity on your part does not resolve the malicious intent of the thief. Opportunity does not excuse cruelty. 1b: Same answer no matter what the amount. My friend also said would I steal money on the table if it was a million dollars? I said it's still not mine so no. 1c: Again same answer for the bike, personally given the area I wouldn't blame you but I wouldn't be upset if others called you stupid for doing it. 1d: This is more gray but still the same answer, If you gave it and expected it back that person should have given it back to you. It shows how dishonest that person is. 1e: Hard to say, probably if you were in a situation were someone wouldn't try to screw you over just because. Self harm without another person maybe? Your guess is as good as mine over what kind of situation that would be.

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

No, because no incident has taken place yet so there is no victim. I see it instead as good advice. If they don't take that advice and someone brakes into their house well, I'd quicker blame the thief and sorry for the home owner for their folly. The thief impeded on the rights of someone else and so committed the crime. Nothing would have happened if the homeowner didn't lock the door and the thief did nothing.

I guess it's obvious I'm a sucker but eh whatever. I like being empathic.

Thanks for your extensive response. Seems like you are willing to bite the bullet and really stick to the "only the thief is to blame" for all my examples. I cannot imagine how one would apply that amount of leniency in real life, but I'll take you at your word there.

Your stance on the topic of rape seems to be quite reasonable, so I am not inclined to attack you unduly, but would you consider telling a women not to get too drunk in order to avoid a possible rape victim blaming?

You're welcome. Those were interesting questions. I'm actually really happy with all the responses on this as I love a little debate now and then. I would actually boil at least some of these answers down to personalities. I told you I'm an empathic idealist I should mention too that my friend is more of an realistic pessimist (and we are both analytical) so we each looked at the situation in absolutes which is probably a mistake in and of itself.

Great point about putting these things into practice. It's much easier for me to say no I wouldn't pick up a hypothetical $1million than it is to actually be presented with that situation. I would be lying too if I said I haven't picked up loose money off that ground with no way of finding the owner and kept it. Never did that with a wallet though which has an actual ID, or something that clearly might be owned like a bike or a car. I also think malicious intent also comes from several different places including things like desperation. If I were poor and desperate like how some people in bad places tend to be than yes my values would most likely play secondary to the need to feed my family. But make no mistake though I'd still be the person to blame. Blaming anyone else would be fooling myself.

As for the rape question I'm not sure if I mentioned my own thoughts on it in this thread, but no I wouldn't. I can't go around expecting everyone to be willing to rape everyone I also don't feel like I have the authority to tell someone how to live their lives with advice like that, I know getting drunk is part of the fun with some people. However I would say things like try to cover up your drinks and don't go a lone if it can be helped. If they don't do it, again I would not blame them if something were to happen.

One more thing I believe is that Victim blaming happens not on the part of the victim but instead on the part of the accuser. People will find any excuse to blame someone (not just drunkeness or carelessness). The only way to avoid victim blaming is to not judge the victim but instead the criminal and farther to not to justify the criminal.

 

[lacktheknack]

Locking the car is a safety feature, not a requirement.

Consider Churchill, Manitoba, where there's a bylaw requiring cars to be unlocked on the street so that bystanders can dive inside one if a polar bear shows up. If someone's car in Churchill is stolen, is the owner at fault then? No? Then why would I be at fault for not locking my car two provinces over? Maybe I have a good reason - maybe I suddenly needed to go throw up, maybe my lock is faulty, maybe I left it open for a friend to grab something out of it later and we can't meet beforehand. An unlocked car isn't an invitation. Saying it is in any way brings up messed up further questions such as "Is a girl in a tank top inviting rapists?" and other such absurdities.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Isn't it a bit like blaming the rape victim because s/he was drunk/wearing a short skirt?

Sure, doing something stupid (like getting drunk without your friends or leaving your car unlocked) is...well...stupid.
BUT...it ISN'T ILLEGAL.

There's an old saying that goes 'locks are there to keep honest men honest'.
I NEVER liked that saying because it's so fucking cynical about honest/decent people.

:/

It does seem like the kind of quote for people who believe that everyone but them is a shithead. The rape apologists especially never make any sense. "She got drink at a party, she shouldn't have been so stupid!" To paraphrase Winston Churchill, in the morning the victim will be sober and the rapist will still be a fucking rapist.

I think the logic is sound. People are what they do, not what they think. We do not punish thought crimes.

That being so, a lot of people may have a dark side but enough self control to not act on it. That being so, making it easier for those people to retain their self control is to the benefit of society.

Sure, you can just call them evil and blame them for having their dark sides, but that is not going to make them go away. Nothing is. So if we wish for society to have fewer bad incidents, the old way of thinking is really most effective outside of some kind of authoritarian mind control system where you are sinful for just thinking about something.


I use this wedding cake example to illustrate this point. When you're in a wedding and they bring out the cake, you can look at it and find it delicious, you can desire to stick your finer in it and take a big chunk of cream from the side of it and eat it, and that's fine. Nobody would blame you for feeling this way, it's a tasty-looking cake after all. No matter how much of a huge asshole you would be for ACTUALLY doing that and ruining the wedding, merely wanting to would be seen as something to chuckle about. That is the normal, common-sense way of looking at people's desires. If we suddenly started blaming someone as a wedding-ruinner for having such a desire, simply because if that desire was acted upon it'd ruin the wedding, well, wouldn't that be pretty insane.


If anything, it is more precious to have a desire you do not act upon. It is a show of character, withstanding temptation. Someone without the temptation has no struggle to live right, it comes naturally to them. Such a thing doesn't actually take any effort hence celebrating it because it's just "normal" or "well adjusted" feels somehow unfair.

 

[lacktheknack]

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?

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

I'll take it all the way. At the point of giving $50000 to a complete stranger and expecting it back, I'd say that you're not the smartest tool in the shed, but if they take the money and run, that is entirely their fault, and you deserve that money back if they are caught. Being dumb doesn't mean you deserve bad things to happen to you. You might be irresponsible and a moron, but at the end of the day, the guy who took your money is the one that gets arrested.

There are elderly people who have been swindled out of hundreds of thousands of dollars through Nigerian Prince scams, something I can see through instantly, but do I think that they should suffer the rest of their lives for being so gullible? No, I want them to get their money back.

No, telling someone to lock their house isn't victim blaming, it's advice. Telling them "You deserve being robbed because you didn't lock your house" is victim blaming.

 

[Sonmi]

Also, both are to blame. The thief for being a thief, and the car owner for being careless. Obviously you shouldn't steal cars, but it's also your responsibility to look out for your stuff. Don't leave your doors unlocked, don't leave your wallet alone, don't leave your young children unsupervised. The victim is still a victim, granted, but it doesn't absolve him of being irresponsible.

If they are at fault for the crime, what should be the charge against them? Sentence if found guilty?

How do you extrapolate that I think that someone that is blatantly irresponsible should be found criminally liable from what I said? Or that the crime itself is entirely the victim's fault?

Personal responsibility is also a thing, you know?

 

[Trunkage]

Well, by that logic, if I steal candy from a baby, then it's the babies fault for not fighting back harder.

It's not acceptable to commit crimes against people on the grounds that they are stupid. I remember learning this in primary school, come on people...

Isn't Wall street doing this all the time?