--- In [email protected], "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hannah, you always make a convincing argument, and not only that,
> you're funny when you want to be, too, which is why I'm glad you
> contribute to this group. But let Capt. Analogy take another stab
> at this.
>
> Say you're shopping and leave your credit card somewhere, and an
> unscrupulous fellow shopper picks it up and runs it up with a
bunch
> of crap purchases. Say he fills up his 2005 Aspen green Camry and
> buys tickets to Bob Dylan on Saturday, for instance. Yes, this
> person is as guilty as if he had picked it directly from your
> pocket. But to some degree, you did fuck up. We live in a world
in
> which you need to protect yourself, your loved ones who can't
> protect themselves, and your valuables. These are unfortunate and
> undeniable truths. If you don't do this, or worse, do the exact
> opposite, you have to bear a certain degree of responsibility.
> Whether it is naivete' or carelessness, society is unlikely to
make
> concessions for you. The person who picked up your card saw an
> opportunity, and may not have had the intent to steal a card that
> day. But still, you're screwed.
>
> Now to Gene's remark about drunk driving vs. tax evasion. Okay,
now
> I'm drunk at a bar. I have my car and I have my keys. I have the
> opportunity to sleep in my own bed, to be comforted by my own
cats,
> to apply my own icepacks, steaks, cucumber slices, and do whatever
I
> need to do in my own bathroom. There is no intent to harm
anyone.
> The crime lies between the poor judgement, and the opportunity to
> drive to where I want to be. Tax evasion is a crime of intent.
The
> repercussions about sucking up resources and depriving money that
> might have gone into social programs, blah blah won't get into
that,
> particularly under this administration.
>
> Say you're walking by a parked convertible with the top down, and
> there's a $100 bill on the front seat. Most of us will think,
this
> is a set up, ain't touching that thing. But we're special. What
> percentage of society do you think will grab that thing, compared
to
> breaking into a locked car with a bill on the seat? A far greater
> percentage. You're basically an idiot for leaving a $100 in an
open
> car. Only a real douchebag will break someone's window for a
lousy
> $100. I think Gene thinks a crime of intent is worse than a crime
> of opportunity.
>
> So what I'm getting at is yes, your kids should not be walking
home
> alone, especially if you have dressed them up as little freakin'
> whores.
>
> This ain't the garden of eden, there ain't no angels above.
Things
> ain't what they used to be, and this ain't the summer of love. -
> Blue Oyster Cult
>
Wow. James, I think this is the first time I've seen a serious post
from you. And it's extremely well-written and well-reasoned.
But I'm still going to disagree with you.
I think there are clear differences between the "leaving your credit
card" scenario, the driving drunk scenario, and the tax evasion
scenario. The differences relate to both intentions and
consequences.
In the credit card scenario: yeah, you screwed up, but your screwup
was not intentional, and it was not the ultimate cause of your
getting stuck with the cost of the Dylan tickets. The creep who
owned the green Camry had to take intentional action to use your
card. He had to know, when he handed the card to the cashier to pay
for his tank of gas, that he was committing a crime. He was
gambling on not getting caught / paying the consequences, but he was
acting intentionally.
In the tax evasion scenario: as you point out, you've got to take
intentional action -- in fact, a whole bunch of intentional actions -
- to commit the crime. And your actions are clearly the direct and
ultimate cause of your violation of the law. Again, you gamble on
not getting caught or paying the consequences, but you know
perfectly well (at least in this hypothetical case) that you're
doing wrong. (No Ken Lay defenses permitted here.)
Now we get to the drunk driving scenario. Yeah, it's understandable
that you might want to recover in your own bed, snuggle with your
teddy bear, watch your own porn videos, etc. But *you are still
taking intentional action* in getting into that car and turning the
ignition. You know you're doing something wrong; you may even be
aware, through that alcoholic haze, that you're about to commit a
crime. But you still choose to take the gamble, and hope that you
don't suffer the consequences.
The only difference I see between the credit card theft scenario and
the drunk driving scenario has to do with the probability of
consequences. In the credit card scenario, Mr. Aspen Green Camry
knows for damn sure that his intentional actions are going to make
somebody else suffer. In the drunk driving scenario, you don't know
*for sure* whether your longing for your teddy bear and raw steaks
are going to make somebody else suffer, but you decide that your
comfort is worth risking the lives of everybody else who happens to
be on the road with you.
I admit, this discussion goes down a slightly different road from
the discussion of victim responsibility. As a recovering Catholic
whose friends have a bit of experience with the topic, though, I do
want to point out to Hannah that it isn't just "defrocked" priests
that parents should worry about.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weingartenchatters/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
