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

[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?

 

[bjj hero]

This seems clear cut to me. Only one party violated the rights of another and that was the car thief.

The insurance company however would never pay out on this.

 

[one squirrel]

It is also quite interesting to know that burglary insurances won't pay if the customer has been grossly neglient, for example if they have some sort of climbing aid next to their house.

This sort of policy does not strike me as unethical, but in the light of this discussion it seems like it should. Don't really know what to think.

 

[runic knight]

The person who actually stole it is always to blame for the act. However, you can point out the stupidity of the lack of precaution without feeling guilty, as it is no different than flaunting safety warnings by playing in the street. Yes, you need to acknowledge that crime exists and that because it exists, not being a target it on you even if the actual guilt of the crime is on the committer.

Since the crime was likely going to happen one way or another, being stupid about it and not taking precautions increases the likelihood of it happening to that individual over others. So while they take no blame for the crime itself, they do take blame for being a daft fool about the situation where a legitimate threat existed.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

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?

Exactly, if they are responsible, should they not be held liable criminally for their part in a criminal act?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

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?

1: Yes, you are blameless. If that is not the case and you are to blame for your loss, should we not charge you with bike theft as you just said it's your fault the theft happened?

 

[McElroy]

Being dumb doesn't mean you deserve bad things to happen to you.

But you do deserve dumb things happening to you. And there's a point where something can be both and sometimes the onlooker loses empathy. Depends on the person, I'm guessing, and we're seeing a whole spectrum of people along with their opinions on the matter in this thread, aren't we?

What I find sorta interesting are the comments saying they are appalled seeing (or finding out) people think this way. I know I can be a rather mean person, but perhaps that doesn't even cut it and it should be something like "mean as fuck" instead. Moreover, with some people it could be about their personal philosophy - deterministic vs free will and so on.

 

[Sonmi]

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?

Exactly, if they are responsible, should they not be held liable criminally for their part in a criminal act?

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

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

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?