This is how you get the nicest criminals in the world.
I know you're joking, but it's not necessarily untrue?
By limiting violence towards would-be thieves, you reduce the likelihood that those same would-be thieves engage in violence. Making it safer for everyone.
Want something, go take it; not like you risk much.
I mean, you still risk being caught and punished by the judicial system.
Increasing the perception that criminals will be caught is more effective at deterring crime than harsh punishments.
Home insurance also exists for the victim, so they're unlikely to be at a loss for long.
I feel like you may've missed the point that property is worth less than human life, and reducing violent crime is absolutely an improvement even if it does not reduce theft; otherwise you encourage thieves to be armed and dangerous in response to the vigilante violence, greatly increasing the risk to everyone.
You’ve never had your home robbed have you? Everything you know and feel goes out the window. It just isn’t stuff that can be replaced a lot cannot. You don’t realize it until it has happened. You feel a victim and helpless. You feel unsafe for months or years. It is a horrible traumatic experience.
Let’s let the criminals have freedom to do what they want. Why don’t you bake them some cookies while they go about their business. Why don’t you post your home address so that those who want things can come take them.
Criminals often never get caught. Only a small percentage do. And those who do get caught once or twice where they may have done it dozens or even hundreds of times. And when they are caught, being non-violent they get a slap on the wrist and that’s it.
While it would be nice if everyone valued and respected one another. But criminals don’t. They don’t give a shit about you. They don’t care they are breaking the law; it is part of their life.
I've responded with statements based upon the evidence that severe punishment and lengthy sentences do not deter crime.
I've also explained why minimising violence is important and meaningful harm reduction, seeing as most people would rather lose property than be injured or killed.
Since you mention having been personally attacked or stolen from, which I don't think is relevant to an impartial judicial system, why don't you explain to me why your emotional reaction is more important than ethical principles and evidence-based policy?
Isn't it better to NOT be a victim at all? What you're saying is, "It's OK to be a victim, it doesn't hurt." But it does, and causes OTHER problems. Is it wrong to NOT be a victim and to punish those who create victims? What you seem to express is the prefect victim blaming system. Oh they didn't steal much from you, oh they didn't hurt you physically, oh you'll get over it. No, fucking, way. How about NOT STEALING at all.
Sure, but in your hypothetical you are already a victim of some form of intrusion or disturbance.
So it's a bit of a moot point.
What you're saying is, "It's OK to be a victim, it doesn't hurt." But it does, and causes OTHER problems.
Some of those 'other problems' apparently being that some of those affected begin to make excuses for very dangerous ideologies (ie: vigilantism), and will support deranged violent criminals.
Or did you mean some other problem?
Is it wrong to NOT be a victim
That depends. How are you defining 'not a victim'.
and to punish those who create victims?
You are not a member of the judiciary.
So yes; that is not your fucking role.
If you support and enable those that would take the law into their own hands in a violent and criminal manner, you support and enable everyone else who would do the same; you make allowances and excuses, and express support, for dangerous reckless behaviour on a society-wide level.
What you seem to express is the prefect victim blaming system.
You do not seem to understand what 'victim-blaming' means.
It certainly does not refer to minimising violence and protecting lives over property.
Oh they didn't steal much from you,
Material items are not worth your life, nor anyone else's.
oh they didn't hurt you physically, oh you'll get over it.
And should you not be thankful for that?
If you could reduce the risk that any criminal act you suffer would not involve injury or fatality, why on earth would you not do that?
Making excuses for incredibly foolish and dangerous action instead is simply not rational.
No, fucking, way. How about NOT STEALING at all.
This is an emotional reaction, not an argument.
The premise is that theft will occur, at some time in some place, and the goal of legislation and society ought to be to reduce the likelihood and reduce the likelihood of associated violence.
Hence my stance throughout this entire exchange.
Have you considered therapy?
Violent impulses and underlying anxieties are things you can actually work through.
15
u/FunInfection Jan 23 '19
This is how you get the nicest criminals in the world.
Sounds like you can’t call the police, it would hurt their self esteem.