|
On November 23 2009 13:28 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2009 13:24 BroOd wrote:On November 23 2009 13:22 druj wrote:On November 23 2009 13:09 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I think its reasonable to assume areas with high car theft are areas with high crime rates in every category. People are more likely to steal not because they are missing some moral backbone that nice white folks happen to magically possess but because those black people getting caught on the show are poor, have no education and can not find jobs. Enticing people in poverty to steal is exploitation. Please don't compare this to yourself and say, "I would never do this" so it's ok for those people to go to jail because you are not those people. This is what happens when each instance of crime is taken out of context to be examined like universal law. This might be a temporary band-aid to reduce car theft in some ghetto but only as long as people find ways to bypass it.
The criminals caught on the show are not the deviants like most of you think. Seriously, how many of you would pick up a 100 dollar bill on the ground if you felt that no one will catch you? Totally irrelevant. What if you were wingsandrockx and I left an unlocked M3 in front of you. Would that be considered entrapment?
no if anyone enters your car and steals it they are thieves, a law abiding citizen would not walk away with an M3.
On November 23 2009 13:29 IntoTheWow wrote:
And imagine I modified the maps on LastShadow's starcraft folder. He makes a game but he doesn't notice the minerals and unit build times are modified until the game started. If he continues playing, is that considered cheating?
This is entrapment. And for the record if you were last shadow and noticed you would be cheating.
making this into a TV show is ridiculous, and they obviously target areas where this is more likely to happen, BUT the people that go through with it are criminals, they commited a crime of their own accord.
I for example would never have even bothered to open the car and see if it had keys or not, much less driven it away, on the simple premise that IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY.
if you have the opportunity to benefit yourself at the cost of another and you take it, knowing it is against the law you are a criminal end of story, there is no leeway on this.
I have friends in my area where i lived in portugal that would definitely enter an unlocked parked car, and if they noticed it had keys some would probably drive it away. these are people i know, trust and like, but if they get caught they go to jail ,and i won't think it would be entrapment, it is their decision, irrelevant of how badly their lives suck and unprivileged they are, to steal and as such they will ( if they get caught) pay the consequences.
edit: also this argument that cops shouldn't get people to commit crimes holds no water. They are taking criminals who would in the same circumstances commit the crime with a civilian's car.
you know what the difference would be? there is a risk that a car chase commences that may very well lead into an accident, that may in turn lead to the death of INNOCENT civilians.
and let's not even begin to talk about monetary cost benefits.
|
On November 23 2009 14:40 Always wrote:
I agree with IntoTheWow-- this doesn't really catch car thiefs per sé. Rather, it tries to entice people (who may or may not normally steal things) into stealing. It's like asking for a bad thing to happen. A person may not normally steal a car, but gift-wrap it with keys in a started engine, and you have a breakdown of morals waiting to happen.
This thread seems to boil down to two primary disagreements. One is on the feasibility of this method as a realistic scenario, and the other is on the dynamics of human nature. I'm actually a little surprised at how many of you believe that this "breakdown of morals" will occur near-universally when the illusion of no repercussions is presented. I agree that in certain extreme circumstances, such as stealing a loaf of bread for one's starving family, we would all become opportunistic criminals. But in this sort of scenario, I don't believe that most well-adjusted individuals would steal something which would have such an enormous impact on another's life just to improve their own circumstance in a non-essential way. Even if one "who may not normally steal things" is enticed into this scheme, they've still proven their willingness to do so should an opportunity arise and will be prevented/discouraged from doing so in the future with their jail sentence. How far does someone have to go out of their way to be considered a criminal? There are some instances where premeditated crime is dealt with more severely than opportunistic or impulsive crimes, but the latter should not be allowed to slide into a grey area of what is considered acceptable behavior. No criminals commit their crimes expecting to be caught.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote:
The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
In terms of long-term deterrence, it does seem to be effective in getting people to commit less crimes. This is why the opposing argument seems self-contradictory to me. If you are so untrusting as to believe that an enormous number of people would steal a car if presented with the illusion of unlikely repercussion, then wouldn't it be wise to institute policy that discourages this notion? When bait car programs are publicized, the perceived omniscience of the police force increases greatly. All of us untrustworthy scoundrels will think twice before jacking what appears to be an easy target.
|
For me to agree with this method a couple other things would have to be used in conjunction with it. I am assuming that this method cuts down on police costs in the sense that police can patrol less for car thieves. With the addition of these set ups being on TV, there would hopefully be enough money to start some start of rehabilitation program for the area that said set ups are occurring. Assuming that a majority of those caught in these situations are just poor desperate people and not career criminals, i believe that some sort of program that involved simple courses on job training, trade school education, help with support for children, if any, and other social programs.
But, I am not so jaded to think that this will ever really happen. So in conclusion, this is, in my opinion, just another way of preying on the poor.
|
I don't think of it as full entrapment but borderline. Ideally, law-abiding citizens will leave the car alone.
But the scenarios they are setting up for the show is:
- Very expensive car in a poor neighborhood.
- Keys left visible (on hood) or car engine left running.
- Make it obvious the car has been abandoned there (having officer fake arrest a person in plainclothes).
We as people are not as ideal as we'd like to believe. On the surface, people will speak as if they are righteous but it is their actions that define who they are. In fact, when given the opportunity, I believe most of us will turn bad if we believed could get away with it. It is only the threat of punishment that is keeping people in line. Some politicians preach family values while running around with escorts, priests who molest kids, gay republicans who are publicly against gay rights, the list goes on.
What the show is doing is to produce the most juicy opportunity available to poor people to get them to commit a crime. Imagine what a Cadillac Escallade can do for somebody who has very little money.
--------------
That aside, the show is somewhat entertaining. There are people who wrap plastic bags over their hands (as to not leave fingerprints) and then coming up with cheesy excuses to the cops.
I'd actually want to see a reality show where they put a hidden camera on a gang member and record their daily lives, minus any killing or really bad parts.
|
On November 23 2009 15:27 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2009 14:40 Always wrote:
I agree with IntoTheWow-- this doesn't really catch car thiefs per sé. Rather, it tries to entice people (who may or may not normally steal things) into stealing. It's like asking for a bad thing to happen. A person may not normally steal a car, but gift-wrap it with keys in a started engine, and you have a breakdown of morals waiting to happen. This thread seems to boil down to two primary disagreements. One is on the feasibility of this method as a realistic scenario, and the other is on the dynamics of human nature. I'm actually a little surprised at how many of you believe that this "breakdown of morals" will occur near-universally when the illusion of no repercussions is presented. I agree that in certain extreme circumstances, such as stealing a loaf of bread for one's starving family, we would all become opportunistic criminals. But in this sort of scenario, I don't believe that most well-adjusted individuals would steal something which would have such an enormous impact on another's life just to improve their own circumstance in a non-essential way. Even if one "who may not normally steal things" is enticed into this scheme, they've still proven their willingness to do so should an opportunity arise and will be prevented/discouraged from doing so in the future with their jail sentence. How far does someone have to go out of their way to be considered a criminal? There are some instances where premeditated crime is dealt with more severely than opportunistic or impulsive crimes, but the latter should not be allowed to slide into a grey area of what is considered acceptable behavior. No criminals commit their crimes expecting to be caught. Show nested quote +On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote:
The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them. In terms of long-term deterrence, it does seem to be effective in getting people to commit less crimes. This is why the opposing argument seems self-contradictory to me. If you are so untrusting as to believe that an enormous number of people would steal a car if presented with the illusion of unlikely repercussion, then wouldn't it be wise to institute policy that discourages this notion? When bait car programs are publicized, the perceived omniscience of the police force increases greatly. All of us untrustworthy scoundrels will think twice before jacking what appears to be an easy target.
3clipse says it beautifully here, perhaps someone that was starving and needed food would steal some food in order to feed themselves... but stealing a car? That's no immediate gain, your going to have to sell it and your going to get a big chunk of money for doing so...
Anyways plenty of people will not steal even if there are absolutely no external consequences.
For instance I lost my wallet with a $120 in it at school and someone girl found it and returned it to me... she didn't have to do that, in fact she could have just taken the money and left my wallet there and nothing at all would have happened to her. But she gave it back.
Anyways, you know you are committing a crime in the OP scenario. If I walked by a car with the keys in it (and I can see the keys/the car is on) I don't steal the car because "I might get caught", I don't steal it because I have a strong sense of empathy and I know that someone else had to work hard to get that car and for me to take it away sucks for them.
However either way that one thinks about it, its still a crime no matter how it happens. You can't even say its entrapment because a normal citizen could leave there car like this and if the police chance catch the thief after he steals it, it's a car theft. Same scenario just it isn't being set up.
People don't like this because they usually have some sort of vendetta against the cops, ie they got pulled over or maybe they had a friend get busted for possession charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
