Ethics question #2: Crime and Punishment

[Heather in Neverland]

ON A CERTAIN NIGHT, TWO CLOTHING STORES WERE BOTH ROBBED. A THIRTY-YEAR OLD, SINGLE MILLIONAIRE STOLE A $30.00 PAIR OF PANTS "JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT." ACROSS TOWN, A WOMAN STOLE A $30.00 PAIR OF PANTS FOR HER FOURTEEN-YEAR OLD SON, BECAUSE SHE WAS RECENTLY LAID OFF FROM WORK AND DID NOT HAVE MONEY. THEREFORE, THEY BOTH COMMITTED THE SAME CRIME. YOU ARE THE JUDGE. WOULD YOU DIFFER IN YOUR PENALTIES IN THE TWO CASES? IF SO, HOW OR WHY SPECIFICALLY? IF NOT, WHAT IS YOUR DETAILED REASONING FOR WHY NOT?***

 

Can't wait to see what the hive has to say on this one....:D

[Haiku]

Nope, no difference in the punishment. They both committed the same crime, they both get the same punishment. While personally I would feel that the millionaire was a brat and would have more sympathy for the woman who was laid off, the reality is that 1) no one needs a $30 pair of pants and 2) free clothing is widely available, so just because the woman was in dire straights does not excuse her actions.

 

Tara

[lionfamily1999]

Nope, no difference in the punishment. They both committed the same crime, they both get the same punishment. While personally I would feel that the millionaire was a brat and would have more sympathy for the woman who was laid off, the reality is that 1) no one needs a $30 pair of pants and 2) free clothing is widely available, so just because the woman was in dire straights does not excuse her actions.

 

Tara

:iagree:

Not having much does not give you the right to steal. And for pete's sake, I would make sure that the millionaire got the same punishment regardless of how much the lawyer cost.

[Murphy101]

no difference in punishment here.

Why?

because both parties could have legally obtained those jeans.

the rich man had the money

the poor woman could have accessed multiple charities to assist her. (and I'm thinking her son probably wasn't running around bum naked? how critical was it to have those jeans right at that time?)

 

now if we were talking 3rd world or war-torn anarchy situation where literally one has to fight to get the neccessities of life - I might reconsider the poor mother's case to some degree.

[Renee in NC]

:iagree:

Not having much does not give you the right to steal. And for pete's sake, I would make sure that the millionaire got the same punishment regardless of how much the lawyer cost.

 

:iagree:

 

It's more likely that the millionaire would get a lesser penalty, though.:glare:

[Heather in Neverland]

So...playing devil's advocate here....you don't consider mitigating circumstances at all?

 

I realize the end result is the same...they both stole a pair of pants. But the motives were different...one was for thrills, one was out of desperation.

 

Say there are two murder cases on the docket. One involves a premeditated murder by a husband of his wife's lover. The other is a "crime of passion" (as in the husband walks in on his wife in bed with another man and shoots him). The end result is the same for both cases...a person is dead. But we have different consequences for first degree murder than we do 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.

 

Why would that not apply in this case too?

[Kris]

So...playing devil's advocate here....you don't consider mitigating circumstances at all?

 

I realize the end result is the same...they both stole a pair of pants. But the motives were different...one was for thrills, one was out of desperation.

 

But the mitigating circumstances *were* considered by the previous responses. And I agree with them. Desperation makes me think of "emergency" and I don't think a $30 pair of jeans qualifies.

[Haiku]

Why would that not apply in this case too?

 

Because I don't really consider stealing a $30 pair of pants a crime of desperation. There are plenty of alternatives available to that woman. She might be under emotional stress, yes, and that most certainly played a part in her behavior (unless she is a habitual thief who is using the "I lost my job" thing to drum up sympathy), but I simply don't think this is truly a desperate situation.

 

I once worked with a foster child whose parents abandoned her and her year-old brother. The girl was 12 when it happened. She managed to take care of herself and her brother for several weeks before being picked up by the police for stealing. She stole a package of diapers from a convenience store for her brother. Aside from the fact that yes, there were ways for her to get help (but she was afraid of being separated from her brother, which is what ultimately happened), I am much more likely to consider hers to be a true act of desperation.

 

I just can't get behind "My kid needed $30 pants" as true desperation. Nor do I get behind "I was so emotionally distraught that I had to shoot the guy who was banging my wife, Judge," for that matter.

 

Tara

[Kris]

Say there are two murder cases on the docket. One involves a premeditated murder by a husband of his wife's lover. The other is a "crime of passion" (as in the husband walks in on his wife in bed with another man and shoots him). The end result is the same for both cases...a person is dead. But we have different consequences for first degree murder than we do 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.

 

The "crime of passion" is not necessarily a lesser offense. There is no time requirement for premeditation. You don't need maps and time lines and lists of things to do. If he doesn't carry a gun in his back pocket, the act of taking the gun from the nightstand drawer can be construed as "premeditation." In some jurisdictions, the act of pulling the gun out of his pocket can rise to the level of premeditation.

[Renee in NC]

But the mitigating circumstances *were* considered by the previous responses. And I agree with them. Desperation makes me think of "emergency" and I don't think a $30 pair of jeans qualifies.

 

Once again, :iagree:.

 

I do believe in mitigating circumstances, but this isn't one of them. The only time I can think where stealing was warranted (and I wouldn't even call it stealing) was in NO after Katrina and only the people who were taking truly needed items - diapers, medicines, basic food, and water. I would do the same in the same situation with the caveat that I would keep track and reimburse the store when I was evacuated. Technically it is stealing, but I would do it for ABSOLUTELY NEEDED items.

 

A $30 pair of jeans is not a need unless it was a situation where that was the only thing she could find and he was really naked (like after a natural disaster.)

[Heather in Neverland]

The "crime of passion" is not necessarily a lesser offense. There is no time requirement for premeditation. You don't need maps and time lines and lists of things to do. If he doesn't carry a gun in his back pocket, the act of taking the gun from the nightstand drawer can be construed as "premeditation." In some jurisdictions, the act of pulling the gun out of his pocket can rise to the level of premeditation.

 

Just out of curiosity...where do you fall in the "battered wife syndrome" defense? Like that one pastor's wife who shot him in the back with a shotgun while he was sleeping?

[Heather in Neverland]

I just can't get behind "My kid needed $30 pants" as true desperation.

Tara

 

Is it the price? What if she stole a $10 pair of pants?

 

I used to teach in an inner city school full of poor kids and many of them would rather steal something than take a handout (the humiliation factor). I always found that mindset very interesting...like they have justified stealing but not charity.....:confused:

[Haiku]

Is it the price? What if she stole a $10 pair of pants?

 

 

No, it's not the price. Free clothing is widely available.

 

Tara

[Word Nerd]

Nope, no difference in the punishment. They both committed the same crime, they both get the same punishment. While personally I would feel that the millionaire was a brat and would have more sympathy for the woman who was laid off, the reality is that 1) no one needs a $30 pair of pants and 2) free clothing is widely available, so just because the woman was in dire straights does not excuse her actions.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[Peek a Boo]

I agree that stealing the jeans is Just. Wrong.

 

I might give a stiffer penalty for the millionaire for a reason i have yet to put a finger on [he's intentionally being a jerk? lol], but that doesn't mean I'd nullify the other case.

 

The preacher's wife should have LEFT while the pastor was sleeping.

 

i think i can pretty confidently echo Tara here :)

[lionfamily1999]

Is it the price? What if she stole a $10 pair of pants?

 

I used to teach in an inner city school full of poor kids and many of them would rather steal something than take a handout (the humiliation factor). I always found that mindset very interesting...like they have justified stealing but not charity.....:confused:

That mind set has always disturbed me. My parents would rather we went without.

 

That being said, battered wife syndrome... unless you can show temp. insanity, then NOPE, it was premeditated murder, heck she even planned out her defense ahead of time.

 

Two murderers... I would say that the man walking in on his wife and another man could go for temp. insanity (I prefer not to use the term 'crime of passion' as it seems to make passionate crime a lesser thing. How often is crime without passion?). The man who planned it could have put his mind to more constructive things, like planning his divorce.

[Murphy101]

So...playing devil's advocate here....you don't consider mitigating circumstances at all?

 

I did consider it. Even went so far as to say that if the situation were drasticly different, I might differ on the poor mother.

 

I realize the end result is the same...they both stole a pair of pants. But the motives were different...one was for thrills, one was out of desperation.

 

:001_huh: desperation? her boy literally had no pants on? She literally had no other choices? I don't think there was anything desperate about it. too prideful maybe, but not desperate., which is what I think you encountered in this inner sity situation. too much pride to take assistance.

 

a pp made note of katrina. I agree. stealing a thing of formula, diapers, water, dry clothes in that situation is totally understandable, but that's not the case in the scenario you presented in your OP here.

 

hmm, I don't know that agree with the murder of the lovers scenarios either, but even so it DOES apply in this situation, both parties went in the premediated goal of theft. If anything that goes AGAINST the poor mother and FOR the rich man. The mother went in knowing she couldn't buy, she was premediated. The rich guy just did a spur of the moment thrill with no thought at all. If we apply your murder standards, the poor mother woudl get the harsher sentence than the rich jerk.

 

Just out of curiosity...where do you fall in the "battered wife syndrome" defense? Like that one pastor's wife who shot him in the back with a shotgun while he was sleeping?

 

I think it's iffy at best.

 

If she could get out of bed, get a gun, load it, and shoot him - she could just as easily have walked out the door and never looked back.

 

Now if he followed her or tracked her down later? Yeah, fill him with buckshot.

 

But again, this is no where near on par with theft of a pair of jeans, imho.

[Stacy in NJ]

Isn't Justice suppose to be blind? Aren't we all equal under the law? Same crime = same punishment.

[PrairieAir]

Change the item stolen to food, and I think there would be a much greater difference in the crimes and in what punishment should be given.

[Kris]

Just out of curiosity...where do you fall in the "battered wife syndrome" defense? Like that one pastor's wife who shot him in the back with a shotgun while he was sleeping?

 

In general? I don't think it flies. And in the case of the pastor's wife, specifically, I can't give an opinion because I didn't follow the case. If it was only that she shot him in the back while he was sleeping -- and, of course, it never is -- then I think she should be spending the rest of her life in prison. I *did* hear enough about it to know that she is not.

 

I don't think anyone -- including the state -- is entitled to take a human life, and I will admit that I am often challenged in that belief, most recently by the Caylee Anthony case. Actually, I was just thinking about that the other day while I was reading the latest news.

[Haiku]

i think i can pretty confidently echo Tara here :)

 

Wow, that's a first! :D

 

Tara

[Miss Marple]

If the cases were both brought before the judge, then, yes, the judge needs to make the sentence the same. The time and place for grace to be extended (i.e., looking at mitigating circumstances) would be for the *owner* of each shop to decide whether they wanted to press charges.

 

If I owned both shops, I would possibly consider mitigating circumstances on the part of the poor mother (although I would educate her as to where to get free clothing - but I'm looking past the actual detail of the stolen property), and would most likely press charges against the wealthy person because of the reason.

[lionfamily1999]

Change the item stolen to food, and I think there would be a much greater difference in the crimes and in what punishment should be given.

I don't know about that. A millionaire steals $30 in food, a poor woman steals $30 in food. Really, unless we're talking about a third world country, extenuating circumstances are hard to come by. I could almost see medication... at the same time, don't do the crime unless you are willing to face the consequences. I have much more respect for people that break the law knowingly and face the consequences stoically, than those that break the law and demand exceptions because their case is "special".

[Peek a Boo]

Wow, that's a first! :D

 

Tara

 

shh!! don't let it get around, lol......;)

[mcconnellboys]

I agree with most of the others that, in a perfect world, the punishment for both crimes should be the same. Would it, in actuality, be the same in different jurisdictions with different judges, lawyers, juries? Probably not. Our system of justice is not perfect, by any means, but at least we try....

[Aggie]

Say there are two murder cases on the docket. One involves a premeditated murder by a husband of his wife's lover. The other is a "crime of passion" (as in the husband walks in on his wife in bed with another man and shoots him). The end result is the same for both cases...a person is dead. But we have different consequences for first degree murder than we do 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc.

 

 

 

Well, if I walked in on my dh in bed with another woman, I would shoot him, not her.

[Miss Marple]

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while and re-read the question. It seems that the penalty, not necessarily the finding of guilt, is the issue. We can see that the sentencing of the guilty in the US can vary greatly. Our justice system has put in place many avenues for one to plead "mitigating circumstances". Some states have a 3 strike law, others weight whether the offender is a first time offender, is the offender re-hab-able, did the act endanger anyones lives, etc.

 

What if the situation was this: a man was stopped by the police for driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. But his wife was in labor, had a history of fast deliveries, and they were on the way to the hospital. I would hope that mitigating circumstances would be taken into account by either the ticketing policeman or the judge. But there are probably some judges that would not consider it.

 

For your illustration, I would hope that the store owner would extend grace to the poor thief (if he knew it was a first offense and she was truly contrite), but if the case made it to the courts, I think the judge would be well within his rights to extend grace to one and not the other - but the finding of guilt would be the same.

 

The ability to consider and weigh a sentence and its effects on society and the individual is what makes the position of a judge so important. If we just want a set of rules and sentences to apply, then we could be governed by robots - or a set of rule books. Perhaps the ability to make those judgments is one of the things that makes us "created in God's image". If one looks to scripture for guidance, one clearly sees God's gracious hand being extended all throughout time. Sometimes he punished, but usually after having been merciful so many times.

[Danestress]

Both people would have sentence (the same sentence in terms of jail time) which would be suspended, and both people would then be placed on probation. The conditions of probation would be different, though. The law actually expects judges to consider the circumstances of a case and impose a fair and reasonable penalty, and that's what I would try to do. I would require the wealthy man to pay the maximum allowable fine under the law. I would require him to do community service as allowed under the sentencing guidelines.

 

For the woman, I would not impose as much of a fine because I would not want to punish her children, who are already on the edge financially. I might require community service, I might require counseling of some sort if I thought it was necessary. I would look at her circumstances and the circumstances of the family and try to design conditions of probation that would punish but would hopefully help her in the long run.

 

But if they did not fulfil the conditions of probation, they both would face the same ultimate penalty in terms of jail time (which for shoplifting couldn't be very much anyway!)

[Heather in Neverland]

OK, I've been thinking about this for a while and re-read the question. It seems that the penalty, not necessarily the finding of guilt, is the issue. We can see that the sentencing of the guilty in the US can vary greatly. Our justice system has put in place many avenues for one to plead "mitigating circumstances". Some states have a 3 strike law, others weight whether the offender is a first time offender, is the offender re-hab-able, did the act endanger anyones lives, etc.

 

What if the situation was this: a man was stopped by the police for driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. But his wife was in labor, had a history of fast deliveries, and they were on the way to the hospital. I would hope that mitigating circumstances would be taken into account by either the ticketing policeman or the judge. But there are probably some judges that would not consider it.

 

For your illustration, I would hope that the store owner would extend grace to the poor thief (if he knew it was a first offense and she was truly contrite), but if the case made it to the courts, I think the judge would be well within his rights to extend grace to one and not the other - but the finding of guilt would be the same.

 

The ability to consider and weigh a sentence and its effects on society and the individual is what makes the position of a judge so important. If we just want a set of rules and sentences to apply, then we could be governed by robots - or a set of rule books. Perhaps the ability to make those judgments is one of the things that makes us "created in God's image". If one looks to scripture for guidance, one clearly sees God's gracious hand being extended all throughout time. Sometimes he punished, but usually after having been merciful so many times.

 

GREAT answer!

[Murphy101]

I don't know about that. A millionaire steals $30 in food, a poor woman steals $30 in food. Really, unless we're talking about a third world country, extenuating circumstances are hard to come by. I could almost see medication... at the same time, don't do the crime unless you are willing to face the consequences. I have much more respect for people that break the law knowingly and face the consequences stoically, than those that break the law and demand exceptions because their case is "special".

 

agreed. changing it to food, wouldn't change my opinion unless it was truely a very different situation. food can also be attained via charity.

 

It would never occcur to me to put pride above either what is right or what my kids needed. If that meant I had to suck it up and go down to the local food bank, I'd hate every minute of it - but I'd do that for my dc's sake before I'd steal. I just don't have much sympathy for those who place pride above doing what's right - esp when they use their kids as an excuse.

 

Well, if I walked in on my dh in bed with another woman, I would shoot him, not her.

 

:lol::iagree: I've never understood why they get more mad at the 3rd party than their spouse?!

[Peek a Boo]

For the woman, I would not impose as much of a fine because I would not want to punish her children, who are already on the edge financially. I might require community service,

 

yeah-- at a thrift store sorting clothing!

 

and ftr, i do agree w/ Cynthia about mitigating circumstances, i just disagree that a woman stealing a pair of jeans qualifies as such. I'd want to know more about her efforts to obtain a pair legally.

[Shenan]

They have committed a crime against society. It is up to society to choose the form of punishment. That form of punishment is usually passed down by a judge (elected by voters/society) or jury. And we all know that all forms of punishment are not necessarily fair or fits the crime. However, the worst offense they commited was against God's laws and he specifically states that we should not steal. So it shouldn't really matter whether we feel the punishment fits the crime or not, we should rest assured that God will pass the correct judgement upon them when the time comes.

 

The same goes for those who commit murder. Is it up to society to decide what form of restitution they feel should be paid back to them for the crime. It is up to Society to decide whether to be lenient or not. But ULTIMATELY the correct punishment will be passed down by God.

 

This also holds true for stealing food. We are commanded to NOT steal. And prayer will help find an answer to your food problems. God will give guidance when asked for it.

 

My story on food:

There was a time many, many, many years ago when my oldest was just an infant. We had run out of milk and formula and payday was still 3 days away. Dh was out of town working. We lived in a very rural area then and family was not nearby. The food bank (which was located directly across the street from us in a rural sort of way) didn't have any formula or milk they could pass on to me, they also had no answers to give on where to go for help. After a little prayer for help from the Lord, it popped into my head to call a local grocery store (Giant) and speak with their manager. I called and explained my dilemma and asked if I could come get these things and pay the store for it as soon as dh received his paycheck. The manager told me to come in and see him specifically. When I spoke with him he asked that I check out at a certain register and to tell the cashier to call him. When I went to check out he came over to the cashier and paid out of his OWN pocket for one can of powdered formula and 2 gallons of milk. (This is what I needed to hold us off until payday). Yes! I had to swallow my pride and wanted to break down and cry in front of everyone. It felt somewhat humiliating but the manager was sooo kind and sweet and tried his best to protect my embarassment by telling me to go through a certain register and request him. I was back bright and early Fri to repay him and thanked him extensively for his kindness. He mentioned that he would rather people ask than steal as they do....I have NEVER had to do anything like that since but if desperate times called for desperate measures I would ask friends and family first before I EVER stole!

 

Therefore I would NOT be lenient to either party on any circumstance. God tells us that He will provide for our needs. (I wish I had time to look up that Bible verse but lunchtime is calling me and littles need to be fed)

 

Sadly, the problem is that had these peoples hearts been turned to God they most likely would not have committed those crimes. The rich man would have graciously purchased the pants (inexpensive of course) :D for the poor woman's child. But I digress......

[Murphy101]

I had to swallow my pride and wanted to break down and cry in front of everyone. It felt somewhat humiliating

....I have NEVER had to do anything like that since but if desperate times called for desperate measures I would ask friends and family first before I EVER stole!

 

:grouphug: Exactly the right thing to do.

And isn't it wonderful that it also opened the door not only to allow our fellow man to be generous and kind, but allowed you to see it at a time when you probably didn't have much hope of it?

 

When someone in genuine need steals rather than risk pride to ask for help, they don't just steal the item. They rob us of the chance to be charitable and kind to each other.:)

[Kathy in MD]

Contrary to many posters comments about free clothing and food being available, that's not always true. I live in one of the richest counties in the country and our food banks and clothing banks are running empty. County teachers are sending food home with their students on Fridays so their students have something to eat on Sat and Sun. Our church and Home Owners' Association (yes, one of those evil, pain-in-the-neck HOA's) are collecting food to deliver to the teachers so they aren't paying for all of the food out of their own pockets (yes, those people who according to many don't care for or love their students).

 

Coats and warm clothing are desperately needed also. I assume that heat is minimal in these students's homes if they have heat at all.

 

When I read about the ethical question, my first reaction was did the child really need jeans? Then I remembered the current financial situation. I also remembered that children that age CAN literally grow several inches in only a couple of months. The child in question might not be able to zip his old clothes or even pull them over his thighs. So I would consider mitigating circumstances for the mother.

 

I would also request that everyone who can, raid their closets for clothing that you don't need, or even cut back on the number of outfits you have to chose from. There are people today that need those clothes, because the clothing banks can't supply their needs. People are not donating like they have in years past and more people are needing help.

[Jill- OK]

"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

 

But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house."

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Haven't seen all the responses (sorry if I'm repeating someone), but I believe there should be restitution for stealing, no matter who does it, or why.

 

But there's a definite difference in motive between your two hypothetical people, and I believe that should be taken into account if you're talking penalties.

 

Personal opinion, informed by the Bible.

 

ETA: I know the verse specifically mentions food, but the desperation of the situation is what I think the spirit of the message addresses. You could substitute "stealing clothes when he's cold", I'd imagine. And yes...someone else is going to point out that there's food and clothing readily available to folks in the U.S., but...I'd just say that I'm not thinking of the U.S. specifically, in answering her question, and I'm also taking into account that many folks fall through the cracks of aid programs, or are ignorant of their existence.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Jill, OK

[Murphy101]

Contrary to many posters comments about free clothing and food being available, that's not always true. I live in one of the richest counties in the country and our food banks and clothing banks are running empty.

 

Coats and warm clothing are desperately needed also. I assume that heat is minimal in these students's homes if they have heat at all.

 

When I read about the ethical question, my first reaction was did the child really need jeans? Then I remembered the current financial situation. I also remembered that children that age CAN literally grow several inches in only a couple of months. The child in question might not be able to zip his old clothes or even pull them over his thighs. So I would consider mitigating circumstances for the mother.

 

Well as amother of 6 boys and almost 3 girls I certainly do understand that instant growth spurt issue.

 

The lower donations is true in my area as well, but it's not so bad that people can't get any help. Now, if the mother brought proof that she'd gone to such trouble to find assistance and the assistance simply hadn't been available for whatever reason - I'd reconsider. Did she go to a shelter, goodwill, salvation army, catholic charities, call grandma, post to the homeschool board, freecycle, craigslist, ect...? And at all those options find that no one could help her get some jeans for her son?

 

As difficult as things are right now, I find it hard to believe she did all that and couldn't get a pair of jeans for her boy.