Thank you for the lovely compliment, Cap'n. Rest assured, the feeling's mutual.
Alas, I am unconvinced by your argument. You've described each of
those situations as an instance of a 'crime of opportunity'. Jean
Valjean/Leona Helmsley/Haley Joel Osment (speaking of which, what is
this? the Kevin Bacon rap sheet? Mel to M. Night to Haley Joel?) sees
an opening, measures the risk, goes for it despite its being both
illegal and wrong.
The problem with comparing violent crime to property crime or criminal
negligence (not a lawyer yet, so I don't really know best how to
characterize a DUI) is that the 'opportunity' presented is less
'how-can-I-get-away-with-behaving-irresponsibly-but-to-my-own-benefit'
and more 'how-can-I-hurt-someone'.
Basically, the victim is largely tangential to the criminal in your
examples. It's not personal. They are tempted, and they suffer the
weakness of mind to indulge. In violent crime, the victim is the
whole focus of the crime. It requires not weakness of mind, but a
broken one. What is this irresistible temptation? The victim's
existence?
To my mind, accidentally leaving your door unlocked isn't the same as
going to bar. And I hope we can all agree, that neither one is
'asking for it.'
All I'm really trying to achieve is getting people to step back from
the judging the victim thing. Even if you are not, as I said before,
all about making yourself feel more secure, it's still completely
unhelpful in dealing with the root cause of crime (which is NOT
keeping your kids on a leash/wearing a burqa/never leaving the hosue
after sundown). As unintentional as it may be, Blame the Victim is to
a degree letting the attacker off the hook. I ask that everybody keep
that in mind.
Sermon over. Praise Jeebus.
(P.S. To Denise, I threw in the defrocked so I wouldn't get anyone
telling me that not ALL priests are like that. Sigh, sometimes a gal
can't win.)
James said:
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
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/
