Attitudes to theft

(see first post) The thief's sentence or penalty should be reduced if:

  • The man's wallet was easily assessible because of his clothing.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man had given money freely to many other people in the past.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man was drunk at the time, and not careful with his wallet.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • The man at no time said he did not want his wallet stolen.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man previously told the thief that he might give him some money.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man was friendly with the thief prior to the theft.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • The man was married to the thief.

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • The man had given money to the thief on a previous occasion.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • The man had a repuation for giving his money away.

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • None of the above.

    Votes: 13 72.2%
  • Total voters
    18
James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
A strange question, I know, but all will be made clear in time.

Here's the scenario: A thief deliberately picks the pocket of a man to steal his wallet, which contains $100.

In answering the poll, assume that all the elements of the crime of theft have been proven in court: that the thief took the money, that the man did not give his permission for the thief to take the money at the time, etc.
 
Last edited:
The thief deserves to be punished.

Its all clear as the foggy sky of average London.

podb77_18.jpg
(cited: www.fishki.net)

Trying to make a thief=rapist ?
 
Last edited:
dragon:

I assume the poll response is yours.

Do you think a wife cannot steal from her husband?
 
If the thief was caught in the act, why didn't the man pummel him? If not, then it's fair game, the thief did nothing wrong.
 
James R said:
dragon:

I assume the poll response is yours.

Do you think a wife cannot steal from her husband?
Click to expand...

Although I was going to use a catchy phrase, "Dont assume"...but I will not use it.

Neverthless, I think wife can steal from her husband and should not be prosecuted for that, simply because a wife and a husband have a right to take and share anything between each other freely or take anything, that is why they are wife and a husband, if the other takes something without consent and lies about it than marriage is at stake here...but really 100$...they should be forgiven.
 
Who said he was caught in the act?

Why is that relevant, Oniw17?

And how would the man's assaulting the thief make the thief's crime not a crime, all of a sudden?

Please explain.
 
Did the thief steal something off of the court? No. So it's not up to the court to punish the man. Did he steal something off the police? No? Then it's not up to the police to catch him.
 
dragon:

I didn't assume anything. I asked you a question. Now I'll ask you a few more.

What if a wife stole $100,000 from her husband's bank accounts without his permission, rather than $100 from his wallet?

Would that be any different? If the husband complained to the police, should she be convicted of theft?

Does the amount of money make a difference for you as to whether or not she could be convicted in a court?
 
Oniw17:

Did the thief steal something off of the court? No. So it's not up to the court to punish the man. Did he steal something off the police? No? Then it's not up to the police to catch him.
Click to expand...

So, if I burgle your house or steal your car, it's not up to the police to catch me, but up to you to find me yourself.

What an interesting point of view. I don't for a moment think you actually believe that, of course.

What do you think police and courts are for, Oniw17? I'm intrigued to find out.
 
If he doesn't trust his wife and is stupid enough to share a bank account, that's his fault. If he does trust her, he needs to be a better judge of character.
 
So, if I burgle your house or steal your car, it's not up to the police to catch me, but up to you to find me yourself.
Click to expand...
yup

What an interesting point of view. I don't for a moment think you actually believe that, of course.
Click to expand...
Why because you don't? Bigot.
 
James R said:
dragon:

I didn't assume anything. I asked you a question. Now I'll ask you a few more.

What if a wife stole $100,000 from her husband's bank accounts without his permission, rather than $100 from his wallet?

Would that be any different? If the husband complained to the police, should she be convicted of theft?

Does the amount of money make a difference for you as to whether or not she could be convicted in a court?
Click to expand...

geeese the point here is that a husband and wife are husband and wife because they are together...they cannot steal anything from each other simply because anything they take from each other is each other's item. If what you described did happen than these two are not a husband and wife, this husband should not complain to police, he should divorce the wife and than complain to police or ask the wife why she did it and make sure wife understands that it is wrong and not to do that again and to return all the money to the bank as it is theirs. Anyways husband and wife need to share one account.
 
a marriage is a partnership, if one takes advantage of the other and its not agreed on, then something ain't right. Just because you are married doesn't mean someone can't cheat you or cheat on you, lol. Thats why theres something called divorce...lol forum of intelligent people? i beg to differ lol hahaha
 
Hi James,
I'll only discuss the two options I ticked on the other board:

1) The man at no time said he did not want his wallet stolen.
The assumptions behind this question are different to the resonable assumptions for the corresponding question.
In this question, the wallet was taken by picking the man's pocket, ie it was deliberately stolen by subterfuge.
If $100 was taken from the man:
  • after some discussion directly or indirectly including the possibility of the $100 being taken,
  • openly and not by trickery, violence, or threats, and
  • without clear objections from the victim.
...then yes, perhaps the "thief"'s penalty should be reduced.

2) The man was friendly with the thief prior to the theft.
This one does reinforce the reservations I had about the corresponding option on the other board. I may post more later.
 
iam said:
a marriage is a partnership, if one takes advantage of the other and its not agreed on, then something ain't right. Just because you are married doesn't mean someone can't cheat you or cheat on you, lol. Thats why theres something called divorce...lol forum of intelligent people? i beg to differ lol hahaha
Click to expand...

lol?
 
To the people who have ticked some of the options, think about if you were the victim of this theft. Would you really agree to a lighter penalty for the thief in the circumstances you have indicated?

For example, if you weren't careful with your wallet, you think the pickpocket should not be convicted of the theft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top