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

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The person who stole the car.

Unless they made it blatantly obvious the car could be easily stolen.

Even then it's still the thief's fault. Just that the owner is asking for a slap by police for wasting their time when they have literally anything else that is more important than responding to your non-excusable reason for complaining about your idiocy. I will advocate the police should get to give you a glove slap for wasting their time and the taxpayer's money.

Either that or charge them with the cost of processing their complaint...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

-snip-

I'm a little alarmed by the fact that you so quickly went to rape as an example. I'm not looking for an argument on that one, just letting you know.

I wasn't the one who started the rape talk, the OP mentioned it which is why I included it.

So...this is about people stealing cars? It's not actually about blaming rape victims? Huh.

That made me laugh, but humor aside. Yeah I promise it is what it is.
I actually brought up subject of rape with him too and he already expressed a strong opinion on the matter; that blaming the victim is inexcusable because usually the blaming reasons are subjective.

In the car example, he exposits that the person should be blamed if there is an obvious and objective preventive measure to avoid the incident. I claim that incident shouldn't happen in the first place because the thief had malicious intent and was actually the direct cause not really the failure locking of the car.

To be fair, in my opinion both are examples of victim blaming. I wasn't willing to dive deeper into the subject of rape with him that night.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I wasn't the one who started the rape talk, the OP mentioned it which is why I included it.

You're right. My mistake. We cool?

NAH WE AIN'T COOL, NOW I NEED TO YELL AT YOU TO ESTABLISH DOMINANCE FUCKING ALPHA MALE STYLE!

Crimes of passion are a dark reminder that at the end of the day we're all just apes wearing shoes. Crimes of passion are when you get drunk and beat the dude your girlfriend was cheating on you with. When someone enrages you to the point that you just have to strike them. When you're so afraid that you shoot the wrong guy. These are not premeditated. They are states of intense emotional distress. Ever see someone having a panic attack? Similar concept, broader range of emotions and responses.

Crimes of compulsion are those notorious cases like Son of Sam, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. People who for whatever reason have been afflicted with violent compulsions. The ability to hold it off is like flexing a muscle for some of them. When the New York police chief finally sat down to meet Son of Sam, he left saying, "I wanted to hate him, but there's nothing there. He's a vegetable."

Crimes of passion and crimes of compulsion are both irrational types of crimes. Crimes of passion, again, have no potential reward, and they are basically driven by a compulsion, but rather than the compulsion being the completion of the crime, the compulsion with crimes of passion is the restoration of respect, or the compulsion to show dominance. Crimes of passion tend to occur in response to a perceived slight. The wife that cheated on you needs to be killed because of the disrespect shown. The guy who spilled a drink on you needs to be punched in the face for disrespecting you, etc. There's never any benefit to those crimes, they're carried out due to uncontrollable rage.

YEAH YEAH YEAH

Now we cool.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

There is a vast gulf of difference between freaking out in panic and hurting someone by accident and having a compulsion to steal shit. Seriously, think about how fucking complex the human brain is. Do you really think a binary is good enough to cover all criminal behavior?

No, I don't, but this isn't a criminal justice class and I'm not about to start quoting excepts from Mark Warr, Derek Cornish, or Ronald Clark.

This binary is good enough to explain on a forum why the crimes of rape and car theft are incomparable, and why "victim blaming" in one case (the deterrence of a rational crimes) could be reasonable response, whereas in another case (the deterrence of an irrational crime) it is entirely unreasonable.

I'm in no way saying that you're wrong, we can spend many pages analyzing the causes of crime to a granular level, but further sub-division doesn't really help convey the basics of what I'm talking about and would only serve to muddle the issue.

 

[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.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Society is to blame, for not having an adequate support network and education system that would have both eliminated the need for stealing vehicles and properly taught everyone to not steal vehicles even if they are unlocked. The theft of an unlocked car is a symptom of a toxic, rotting system, mired in corrupt and ineffective law that invites thieves to prey on the inattentive or unwary. The only solution to this is to BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND, WITH THE WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITING IN GLORIOUS RESISTANCE AS THEY REBUILD A BETTER SYSTEM, A SYSTEM WHERE NO MORE UNLOCKED CARS ARE STOLEN! VIVA LA RESISTANCE!! VIVA LA UNLOCKED CARS!!!

*cough* or, uhh, you know, the thief is to blame for stealing shit, even if said shit was poorly secured.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

If you leave your car unlocked on purpose and you know it's a high risk area, you're kind of an idiot, I guess. Sure the thief is to blame, but you also made a stupid decision and created an opportunity. Though in reality, I think what would happen is an opportunistic thief would steal whatever you left inside the car, and not the car itself.

I think people have different perspectives depending on where they live, though. I live in a very violent city so if you did that here, people would say you're a dumbass, and you would probably agree with them.

 

[K12]

Making a crime easier to commit doesn't change who is to blame for the crime being committed.


I think what people consistently do when considering blame is to wrongly conflate it with cause and then assign blame based on counterfactual statements.

In other words, stating that "if you hadn't left your car unlocked, it would not have been stolen" might be true but that doesn't entail that "you are to blame for your car being stolen".

 

[MrFalconfly]

Making a crime easier to commit doesn't change who is to blame for the crime being committed.


I think what people consistently do when considering blame is to wrongly conflate it with cause and then assign blame based on counterfactual statements.

In other words, stating that "if you hadn't left your car unlocked, it would not have been stolen" might be true but that doesn't entail that "you are to blame for your car being stolen".

This is why I answered "Partly at fault, silly goose".

I mean he is partly at fault, but it's the very small part which earns him a bit of harmless ridicule (and the grievance of having his car stolen), while the criminal blame should all fall on the thief (and I hope just for karmas sake that he gets a lawyer that shouts "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE").

 

[jademunky]

The thief is still entirely to blame. Me being an idiot and making the thief's job easier is not a legally mitigating circumstance.

 

[the December King]

I believe at one point in the movie the Lady Eboshi proudly boasts that "This is how you kill a god", a statement that at the very least smacks of egotism and pride. And to nature, her actions were quite evil. But there was more going on than that. That the characters in the film weren't all so black and white was one of the more charming features of the piece to me.

A thief takes what isn't theirs. It doesn't matter if it is unlocked, unmanned, etc. The victim can be seen as careless, foolish, naive, sure- but they didn't commit a crime. That's my take, anyways.

It's been awhile since I saw the movie, but when she said that, wasn't it to embolden her men and mock their notion that the creature in their path was a God in the first place? Kind of like an atheist spitting on a cross and inviting God to strike him down? I think she just thought her men were being ridiculous for believing they were standing before a god.

That sounds about right, yeah- it's been a while for me as well. It still doesn't make her very sympathetic in my eyes, mind you.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Isn't hotwiring a modern car almost impossible nowadays? If the owner leaves the door open AND the keys inside then that I'd call asking for it. Otherwise no, but it's an unnecessary risk they're taking.

Really? Asking for it?

Ok, let's take a small mom and pop store and this store doesn't have any fancy security tags and detection devices. Does that mean they are asking for shoplifting?

Let's say I leave my lawn mower in my yard, it's a push mower so no key but I do have a fence. That fence latches but there is no lock. I am asking for my lawn mower to be stolen?

How can people think like this?

 

[WeepingAngels]

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

 

[Ryotknife]

Well, the thief will get charged with a crime (although the odds of him getting caught is almost zero), the owner will get ridiculed for being a colossal idiot.

 

[McElroy]

Isn't hotwiring a modern car almost impossible nowadays? If the owner leaves the door open AND the keys inside then that I'd call asking for it. Otherwise no, but it's an unnecessary risk they're taking.

Really? Asking for it?

Ok, let's take a small mom and pop store and this store doesn't have any fancy security tags and detection devices. Does that mean they are asking for shoplifting?

Let's say I leave my lawn mower in my yard, it's a push mower so no key but I do have a fence. That fence latches but there is no lock. I am asking for my lawn mower to be stolen?

How can people think like this?

Go to any person on this Earth and say: "I left my car without surveillance with its doors open and keys in the ignition and it got stolen!" They will respond with "Why did you leave it like that?" or equivalent.

Broadly speaking, there are always people who will blame victims of accidents or crimes or even cheer at their misfortune because they took a risk, which of course is kinda shitty as there are risks everywhere in everything we do. However, my example has an absurdly high risk that can be mitigated by following advice that literally everyone would share.

 

[somonels]

I bet he's the friend who likes the "Chicken or Egg" paradox.

Whose fault was it the car got stolen? The thief.
Whose fault was it the car got stolen? The thief.
Who is going to get BLAMED? The owner. Because of course someone is going to steal it. It's only natural. He must have not really cared enough about it or secretly wanted it stolen. Probably a scam for money or drama.

Find better friends or make sure you don't drink too much in public or dress provocatively.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Isn't hotwiring a modern car almost impossible nowadays? If the owner leaves the door open AND the keys inside then that I'd call asking for it. Otherwise no, but it's an unnecessary risk they're taking.

Really? Asking for it?

Ok, let's take a small mom and pop store and this store doesn't have any fancy security tags and detection devices. Does that mean they are asking for shoplifting?

Let's say I leave my lawn mower in my yard, it's a push mower so no key but I do have a fence. That fence latches but there is no lock. I am asking for my lawn mower to be stolen?

How can people think like this?

Go to any person on this Earth and say: "I left my car without surveillance with its doors open and keys in the ignition and it got stolen!" They will respond with "Why did you leave it like that?" or equivalent.

Broadly speaking, there are always people who will blame victims of accidents or crimes or even cheer at their misfortune because they took a risk, which of course is kinda shitty as there are risks everywhere in everything we do. However, my example has an absurdly high risk that can be mitigated by following advice that literally everyone would share.

Appeal to Popularity? Just ask anyone, they'll agree with me is your argument? Ok well whatever.

 

[McElroy]

Go to any person on this Earth and say: "I left my car without surveillance with its doors open and keys in the ignition and it got stolen!" They will respond with "Why did you leave it like that?" or equivalent.

Broadly speaking, there are always people who will blame victims of accidents or crimes or even cheer at their misfortune because they took a risk, which of course is kinda shitty as there are risks everywhere in everything we do. However, my example has an absurdly high risk that can be mitigated by following advice that literally everyone would share.

Appeal to Popularity? Just ask anyone, they'll agree with me is your argument? Ok well whatever.

How is "absurdly high risk that can be mitigated by following advice that literally everyone would share" in any way controversial? I don't even think any insurance plan would cover that.

"How can I prevent my car from getting stolen?"
- Well, it either gets stolen or it won't. Don't fret, for it's not your fault if that happens. <-- said no one ever for rather obvious reasons

 

[Catnip1024]

Isn't hotwiring a modern car almost impossible nowadays? If the owner leaves the door open AND the keys inside then that I'd call asking for it. Otherwise no, but it's an unnecessary risk they're taking.

Hotwiring may be, but some of the newer cars with their keyless entry / ignition systems have some crazy security vulnerabilities.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/12/cars-risk-keyless-entry-system-hacked-volkswagen

Although admittedly that is not the same as leaving the door unlocked.

 

[Scarim Coral]

You had me at "purposely".

The driver is aware that he or she did not locked the car therefoe he or she shouldn't be fully suprised that it got stolen. Sure a locked car can be stolen but he or she did make it easier for the thief to get in the car.