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

[klaynexas3]

That depends on what you mean by blame. If I were say the father of a child that left the car unlocked and the car got stolen. If we managed to get the car back, there's no way in hell I'd let that child use the vehicle anymore, and I'd sure as hell be pissed at them. I don't think they're morally at fault or anything, they just acted stupid and now the household has one less car. The same could be said if they were renting a car and left it unlocked. Yes, the thief is the one morally in the wrong, but the person entrusted with the car is the one making intellectually poor decisions. Someone can be a morally upstanding citizen and still be considered incompetent, just like a smart individual could be seen as a morally bankrupt evil bastard, the difference of it all hinges on what sort of blame you're allocating. The scenario with the child, they would suffer the consequences of their actions by no longer being allowed to use a car that they have not paid for. If they want to use a car, they have to pay for their own, so if they make poor decisions again, that's on their head, not mine. If I'm just a cop filling out the report, I'll go after the thief, but I may still tell the individual to lock the car next time, not reprimanding them or anything, just explaining that there was something they could have done that would help prevent this scenario happening again.

 

[WorgenHunter]

Well from what you're saying, the person left their car unlocked on purpose; so that's pretty much asking for someone to steal it. People grow colder by the day, and depending on where you live, you need to take that into account. Believing someone won't take something they want, for whatever reason, is stupid. Of course, I'm not saying that the said thief is in the clear or anything, but I'm just tellin' it like it is.

 

[stroopwafel]

Leaving the door unlocked is negligent but ofcourse theft is still theft. You also don't leave the house with the door open so I don't see how a car is different. There is no denying when your car gets stolen that you atleast partially enabled it by not locking the door.

I completely blame the thief. The thief did the stealing and broke the law.

This is like saying, "Well, she shouldn't have worn that dress/shirt/been a girl if she didn't want to get raped."

That is a ridiculous comparison in my opinion. Nobody provokes rape by wearing certain types of clothing while car thieves(espescially junkies) do actively prowl for unlocked cars.

 

[FalloutJack]

Leaving the door unlocked is negligent but ofcourse theft is still theft. You also don't leave the house with the door open so I don't see how a car is different. There is no denying when your car gets stolen that you atleast partially enabled it by not locking the door.

I completely blame the thief. The thief did the stealing and broke the law.

This is like saying, "Well, she shouldn't have worn that dress/shirt/been a girl if she didn't want to get raped."

That is a ridiculous comparison in my opinion. Nobody provokes rape by wearing certain types of clothing while car thieves(espescially junkies) do actively prowl for unlocked cars.

Probably not true, and offenders will attempt to use the defense even if it makes no sense.

 

[stroopwafel]

Probably not true, and offenders will attempt to use the defense even if it makes no sense.

Offenders will use any excuse to worm their way out of a sentence. I'm pretty sure that statistically there is no correlation between rape and clothing while I'm also pretty sure there is a correlation between car burglary/theft and the doors not being locked.

 

[FalloutJack]

Probably not true, and offenders will attempt to use the defense even if it makes no sense.

Offenders will use any excuse to worm their way out of a sentence. I'm pretty sure that statistically there is no correlation between rape and clothing while I'm also pretty sure there is a correlation between car burglary/theft and the doors not being locked.

It was really just the 'nobody' part I objected to. There's alot of sick people out there. Bound to be a few of 'em who get that way. Basically, I'm saying some people are real dicks about this sort of thing, and I hate them for it.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Perhaps the words "At fault" might suit this conversation better

The person at fault is also responsible for the consequences. Using a synonym for "blame" does not change the situation. If you are as reasonable as your screenname claims, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your logic.

Language matters, blame is more subjective.

I would be comfortable saying i blame you for leaving my car unlocked, but you are not at fault, you did not steal the car.

Language matters.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

There is no denying when your car gets stolen that you atleast partially enabled it by not locking the door.

Then shouldn't the owner be charged for their part in the crime?

 

[stroopwafel]

There is no denying when your car gets stolen that you atleast partially enabled it by not locking the door.

Then shouldn't the owner be charged for their part in the crime?

Not that but your insurance fee should probably go up.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

There is no denying when your car gets stolen that you atleast partially enabled it by not locking the door.

Then shouldn't the owner be charged for their part in the crime?

Not that but your insurance fee should probably go up.

Well why not? Aiding and Abedding is a chargeable offense, after all.

 

[stroopwafel]

There is no denying when your car gets stolen that you atleast partially enabled it by not locking the door.

Then shouldn't the owner be charged for their part in the crime?

Not that but your insurance fee should probably go up.

Well why not? Aiding and Abedding is a chargeable offense, after all.

Aiding and abedding necessitates a degree of deliberate action or intent. Forgetting to lock your door is being negligent in prevention of the theft but would said person have been aware of not locking the door he/she would have done so which is the opposite of aiding and abedding. After all what is the benefit of having your car stolen(excluding insurance fraud)? You didn't want your car to be stolen which precludes any offense and neither are you responsible for theft of your property by being negligent. However being negligent in locking the doors of your car(depending on how often it happens) does put a person in a 'high risk' category for theft and this fact should correspond with the height of the insurance fee.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Folks seem to be having a bit of difficulty with the nuance here.

The person who had their car stolen is in no way responsible for the actions of the thief.

Said person is, however, responsible for not locking their car in the first place.

It's a simple matter of recognizing agency and the consequences thereof.

The latter didn't necessitate the former.
But the former required the latter in order to occur.

The victim is not "to blame" or "at fault" for anything other than their failure to lock the car.

So...yeah. Maybe this is just an issue of semantics? And a gut response to the words being used?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Aiding and abedding necessitates a degree of deliberate action or intent.

Criminal negligence then?

 

[stroopwafel]

Aiding and abedding necessitates a degree of deliberate action or intent.

Criminal negligence then?

No, criminal negligence is(and should be) only reserved for catastrophic professional failure that could have been prevented like from air traffic control or medical surgeons. Negligence in a professional capacity that has severe consequences for people depending on you. But even here I think criminal prosecution is rare and cases(depending on severity) mostly ending in either a settlement or termination of said employee's contract. 'Involuntary manslaughter' by causing a traffic accident due to negligence could also be considered 'criminal negligence'.

The only 'victim' of a person 'forgetting' to lock the car is the insurance company and they could act appropriately by increasing the insurance fee. Case closed.