Theft and Restitution

[Autolykos]

I've been inspired to start a thread about this topic after reading the Politics thread about school strip-searches. CoffeeSaint had related an incident where a student apparently had $50 stolen from her wallet in class. His solution was to announce the theft and offer the thief the chance to return the money without punishment. He even turned the classroom lights off afterwards to allow the thief the comfort of anonymity. Unfortunately, the thief did not take advantage of this opportunity.

There was a similar incident several years ago at public pool, where I worked as a lifeguard. Someone had taken $40 from the office cash register. It must have been one of the employees, since no one else had access to the office. All of us were notified of the situation and the following offer: simply return the money to the office in an envelope. No consequences would follow and there was no need to reveal any identity. I think it was about a week later when the money was finally returned. Whoever the thief was, (s)he took advantage of the anonymity.

My question to you fellow Volconvoans is this: do you feel that such a course of action is ethical? Is it okay or even right to ask for nothing more than what was taken? Or should there be punishment above and beyond the level of restitution? In my own opinion, there is really no need to do more.

- Rob

[Jack]

It should be a race. If you can return it before our investigation uncovers your act, then we'll cease investigating and you get a pass. If we discover you before you return it, too bad. Prosecution time.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood It should be a race. If you can return it before our investigation uncovers your act, then we'll cease investigating and you get a pass. If we discover you before you return it, too bad. Prosecution time.

I could live with that under most circumstances, but I suppose there are instances where that would seem less than fair. ( Like if a treasured item was damaged, a car abused, or if they had to break in to get the property. )

[Jack]

True, M.B. As in my own case. I should have been prosecuted as I had committed a crime regardless of whether or not I "got away" with the loot. I was responding strictly to the examples given.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood True, M.B. As in my own case. I should have been prosecuted as I had committed a crime regardless of whether or not I "got away" with the loot. I was responding strictly to the examples given.

That response is even more indicative of your deep philosophical leanings.


I guess thats why we like you around here.

[Cephus]

It depends on what the ultimate goal is. If all you want is the money returned, then sure, it's ethical to offer the thief a chance to return it in exchange for no prosecution, after all, that theft is between the person who stole it and the one they stole it from, it's their call.

Personally, I don't think simple restitution is going to stop a person from stealing, they're going to get away with it more often than they're caught so they really have no reason to stop stealing unless they get severely punished for doing it at all.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood It should be a race. If you can return it before our investigation uncovers your act, then we'll cease investigating and you get a pass. If we discover you before you return it, too bad. Prosecution time.

I don't know if you were being tongue-in-cheek there (you probably were), but that's actually not a bad idea IMO. It would be easy to see free-market prosecution agencies using such a deal as part of their policy. After all, it would save them money if the thief undertakes restitution on his own.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Cephus It depends on what the ultimate goal is. If all you want is the money returned, then sure, it's ethical to offer the thief a chance to return it in exchange for no prosecution, after all, that theft is between the person who stole it and the one they stole it from, it's their call. Personally, I don't think simple restitution is going to stop a person from stealing, they're going to get away with it more often than they're caught so they really have no reason to stop stealing unless they get severely punished for doing it at all.

I'm not saying that one should not take additional action if the thief does not return what was stolen. However, it makes sense to me to first try to appeal to whatever ethical sense the thief may have. Failing that, like Isherwood said, it's prosecution time.

Again, I dispute the idea that things need to be prohibited by the State in order for people to refrain from doing them. Most people consider theft to be morally wrong because they would not want their own things stolen. So all one needs to do is to go after thieves and try to restore the stolen items back to their owners. There need not be State prohibitions against theft for this to happen.

You also bring up the repeat-offender problem. Unfortunately, the only sure-fire way to prevent repeat offenders is to kill them outright. Most people would not condone the death penalty for any and all crimes, however. Incarceration is the next step up, but it is prone to escape attempts. Given enough time, one of those attempts will be successful. Barring these two things, the only thing that can be done is provide incentives against committing crime -- in other words, show that crime really doesn't pay. Efficient capture and prosecution of criminals are powerful incentives here, and free-market crime-fighting organizations will (ceteris paribus) be inclined to maximize those two things (e.g. "We boast a 98% success rate in our investigations!").

- Rob

[Cephus]

Quote by: Autolykos I'm not saying that one should not take additional action if the thief does not return what was stolen. However, it makes sense to me to first try to appeal to whatever ethical sense the thief may have. Failing that, like Isherwood said, it's prosecution time.

It should be prosecution time all the time. Assume for a moment that a particularly inept thief gets caught 40% of the time. If, whenever he's caught, he just has to return what he stole and get off otherwise scott-free, he still gets to keep 60% of his ill-gotten booty. Where is the impetus to stop stealing under this system?

Most people consider theft to be morally wrong because they would not want their own things stolen. So all one needs to do is to go after thieves and try to restore the stolen items back to their owners. There need not be State prohibitions against theft for this to happen.

Apparently, there are plenty of people who don't consider it morally wrong, or who don't care, otherwise we wouldn't have thieves in the first place, would we? But since you don't seem to have a problem with things getting stolen from you, why don't I just come and take your car and go into hiding, and if you can find me, I'll give it back. If not, I'll just keep it. Sound fair to you?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Cephus It should be prosecution time all the time. Assume for a moment that a particularly inept thief gets caught 40% of the time. If, whenever he's caught, he just has to return what he stole and get off otherwise scott-free, he still gets to keep 60% of his ill-gotten booty. Where is the impetus to stop stealing under this system?

If he was caught stealing one thing and was then found to have other stolen goods, don't you think he would also be found liable for those other goods? Perhaps I shouldn't go into how a 40% capture rate is abysmal and probably unrealistic.

Apparently, there are plenty of people who don't consider it morally wrong, or who don't care, otherwise we wouldn't have thieves in the first place, would we? But since you don't seem to have a problem with things getting stolen from you, why don't I just come and take your car and go into hiding, and if you can find me, I'll give it back. If not, I'll just keep it. Sound fair to you?

Is this you trying to argue? LOL!

What's with saying I don't have a problem with people stealing things from me? Come on now. Where did I say that? Nowhere. For the record, I do have a problem with things getting stolen from me. There, settled.

Also, if you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I did not argue against prosecution. If you did not return my car to me willfully (to use your example), I would certainly hire someone to try to find you, because I want my car back (or something of equivalent monetary value).

- Rob

[Jack]

I don't know if you were being tongue-in-cheek there

No, serious. But my comment only applied to the situation you presented. Different crimes would entail different solutions.

[brien]

Quote by: Autolykos I've been inspired to start a thread about this topic after reading the Politics thread about school strip-searches. CoffeeSaint had related an incident where a student apparently had $50 stolen from her wallet in class. His solution was to announce the theft and offer the thief the chance to return the money without punishment. He even turned the classroom lights off afterwards to allow the thief the comfort of anonymity. Unfortunately, the thief did not take advantage of this opportunity. There was a similar incident several years ago at public pool, where I worked as a lifeguard. Someone had taken $40 from the office cash register. It must have been one of the employees, since no one else had access to the office. All of us were notified of the situation and the following offer: simply return the money to the office in an envelope. No consequences would follow and there was no need to reveal any identity. I think it was about a week later when the money was finally returned. Whoever the thief was, (s)he took advantage of the anonymity. My question to you fellow Volconvoans is this: do you feel that such a course of action is ethical? Is it okay or even right to ask for nothing more than what was taken? Or should there be punishment above and beyond the level of restitution? In my own opinion, there is really no need to do more. - Rob

It probably depends upon whether someone is hurt by the theft. If one isn't hurt, and the money returned, then so much for the wear. However, if the owner needed the money, to lets say, pay their income tax, and they missed the deadline, then there is harm because he who fails to pay their income tax on time is fined and penalized by the IRS.

There are a few implications here.

1) The thief has a "thieving remorse" and returns the money.

2) The thief uses the money and returns it.

3) The thief thinks someone saw him steal it and returns it out of fear.

Only #1 out of all three is acceptable to me because the thief decides to return the money from the nagging pangs of his own conscience and s/he probaly has learned a lesson in honesty. The other two scenarios involves selfishness and teaches the thief nothing.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Autolykos If he was caught stealing one thing and was then found to have other stolen goods, don't you think he would also be found liable for those other goods? Perhaps I shouldn't go into how a 40% capture rate is abysmal and probably unrealistic.

But given the original example with the lights out and the person gets to return the stolen object with no consequences, how would you ever know they had other stolen merchandise, you don't even know who stole it in the first place? And of course, this only works when you notice the item missing while the thief is still there, once he's gone, your property is gone and it's not coming back. I think a 40% capture rate is probably very high, a decent criminal will probably get away with the crime 80-90% of the time.

Also, if you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I did not argue against prosecution. If you did not return my car to me willfully (to use your example), I would certainly hire someone to try to find you, because I want my car back (or something of equivalent monetary value).

But so long as you get your car back, regardless of the fact that it was taken in the first place, you don't care? That's insane.

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien 1) The thief has a "thieving remorse" and returns the money. 2) The thief uses the money and returns it. 3) The thief thinks someone saw him steal it and returns it out of fear. Only #1 out of all three is acceptable to me because the thief decides to return the money from the nagging pangs of his own conscience and s/he probaly has learned a lesson in honesty. The other two scenarios involves selfishness and teaches the thief nothing.

I don't think any of them are acceptable. The only acceptable form of stealing is not stealing in the first place.

[JohnMK]

If the benevolent approach becomes commonplace then you run the certain risk of encouraging more theft. Contrast that with setting a strict precedent that theft is pursued to the fullest extent possible. In the latter scenario, fewer people will risk stealing and you'd probably end up with a more ethical populace.

In our society it would seem a middle ground is adopted in practice. On a personal level, victims seem more inclined to generosity, while the more public the case the more likely a firm line is drawn in the pursuit of discipline; precedent is thus set in the minds of potential thieves. A smart thief should try to avoid potential publicity in his choice of targets; stealing from someone close to him would also be advantageous so long as he were a psychopath who felt no pain in causing pain to a "friend."

I lean towards the "precedent" side of this debate quite strongly, but in private cases I think it proper that citizens be free to choose.

[brien]

Quote by: Cephus I don't think any of them are acceptable. The only acceptable form of stealing is not stealing in the first place.

I agree that not stealing is the best scene scenario but that said, we don't live in a perfect world.

The reason I think #1 is acceptable is because no one is perfect. We all have weak moments of poor judgement. I say we are human and if one feell remorse in time to return the money before any harm comes to the aggrieved, then I say the thief should be forgiven.

Wouldn't this be the "Christain" thing to do, Cephus?

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien I agree that not stealing is the best scene scenario but that said, we don't live in a perfect world.

So what, doing something wrong doesn't get a pass just because nobody is perfect.

The reason I think #1 is acceptable is because no one is perfect.

So what? Actions have consequences. If you do something wrong, you pay the penalty, period. That's how reality works.

The whole point of punishing thieves is to stop people from being thieves. If we punish them severely and often enough, then others who are considering thievery may reconsider because they don't want the same punishment.

Wouldn't this be the "Christain" thing to do, Cephus?

Since I'm about as far from a Christian as you can get, why would I care?

[brien]

Quote by: Cephus So what, doing something wrong doesn't get a pass just because nobody is perfect. So what? Actions have consequences. If you do something wrong, you pay the penalty, period. That's how reality works. The whole point of punishing thieves is to stop people from being thieves. If we punish them severely and often enough, then others who are considering thievery may reconsider because they don't want the same punishment. Since I'm about as far from a Christian as you can get, why would I care?

But even in the American Justice System there is what is known as the "First Bite of the Apple"

You mean to tell me that you are so strict that you won't give anyone a break who has a moemtary lapse of judgement. Are you that intolerant?

[JohnMK]

I doubt it. It's easy to talk platitudes but when it's someone you know well, you're inclined to give their character the benefit of the doubt and ascribe an instance of theft to momentary insanity. If it becomes a pattern on their part, however, then another approach is warranted.

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien You mean to tell me that you are so strict that you won't give anyone a break who has a moemtary lapse of judgement. Are you that intolerant?

Damn straight. That's why we have these little things called "laws". Maybe you've heard of them. That's why we have an inherent social contract that says you follow the laws or suffer the consequences.