Dallas County's new district attorney announced his office will no longer prosecute "theft of necessary items" up to $750.
Read the rest here.
The Infant God
5 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
St. John of San Francisco
Orthodox Information & Resources
Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
A Clear Vision of Eternity3 weeks ago
-
-
Stories2 months ago
-
-
Non-Orthodox Blogs
-
Little Jesus, Wast Thou Shy?45 minutes ago
-
-
The Word Became Flesh, What to Do?2 hours ago
-
-
Guéranger on the Mystery of Christmas3 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Greatness. . .5 hours ago
-
Politics Economics Culture & Miscellaneous Blogs
Don't blame me... I voted for George (the Third)
-
Who Invented the Ukulele?1 hour ago
-
The morning read for Tuesday, Dec. 242 hours ago
-
-
The Biggest Math Story of 20247 hours ago
-
Festive Us: 192221 hours ago
-
Jane Austen’s Christmases1 day ago
-
-
-
-
Escaping the News Encourages Tyranny4 weeks ago
Miscellaneous Sites of Interest
The Blog Yard
Where the best blogs go when they die...
Gone But Not Forgotten
-
-
-
-
A Dozen Years5 years ago
-
-
Moving day6 years ago
-
-
MY FELLOW AMERICANS8 years ago
-
Ten Years is a Long Run…9 years ago
-
Atom / RSS
11 comments:
Dallas legalizes mercy. Opponents say Javert would role over in his grave.
LOL. OK I'm headed over to your house to steal $749 worth of stuff. My cousin will be there tomorrow for another $749. I've got a lot of cousins. Blessed are the merciful.
Theft is not a victimless crime, and striking two of The Ten Commandments is not an act of mercy. Poverty is a legitimate problem, but encouraging stealing is not a moral solution. That I have to actually state any of this is disturbing.
For necessary items, not anything as long as it is below 750. Of course it isn't victimless, but throwing the desperate in prison simply multiplies victims at a higher monetary cost to society. No surprise this is Fox and TX where they would rather spend exponentially more on a stereotype of tough-guy TV law enforcement than ar less to address poverty. It's like throwing desperate people into indefinite detention for misdemeanor illegal entry, which the same bozos support.
No one gets to decide on their own that people can take other people's property with impunity, irregardless of the motive. This is not "prosecutorial discretion." This is refusing to perform the duties of the office to which he was elected. He should resign or be removed from office. And he should be sanctioned by the Bar Association.
Making matters worse is that he doesn't seem to grasp that an orderly society depends on certain basic rules. And the state's raison d'être is the enforcement of those rules. The protection of people and property being pretty much at the top of that list. When the government ceases to perform its most basic function it is violating its part of the social contract. When that happens people will eventually start taking matters into their own hand. If someone is caught stealing from you or your business in Dallas, why call the cops? They are not going to arrest anyone if they know that the DA is going to refuse to prosecute. I have a feeling that we will start see people handling these problems directly. How long before some poor thief ends up beaten to a bloody pulp by someone doing what the state will no longer do, defending their property? And it's worth remembering that Texas has a fairly libertarian approach to firearms ownership and they have done away with the old common law requirement that mandated retreat in the face of criminality outside of one's home before being allowed to open fire.
Criminal prosecution for those stealing necessities out of necessity would not help small business owners recoup their losses - the people are stealing because they are poor and don't have anything. The small business owners would deal with it the same way the do now - as a cost of doing business passed on to consumers or insurance. They get nothing by sending the poor to jail accept the feel-good tough guy satisfaction of enforcing law and order on those least able to afford it or to hire a lawyer to fight its lifelong consequences. This policy also wouldn't lead police to investigate less, because only the context of the theft (necessity, poverty) would prove whether the case should be prosecuted or not. And finally, nothing here says a crime wasn't committed, so the people are likely to be arrested and investigated; the punishment is simply not applied because it doesn't do anything for any of the parties involved, except for those making a political and moralistic meal of it as a matter of hard-hearted principle like modern day Javerts. (As a reminder, Javert is the morally myopic bad guy, not the hero.)
In short, the DA is basically arguing for economia since there's no upside to be gained for any involved. The usual suspects online and on the Right are arguing akriveia for akriveia's sake. If only it was about federal lands, taxes, and guns, then breaking the law is perfectly understandable because freedom.
123,
Do you think people ONLY steal because they need something? Many people steal for the simple reason that they can and want to, not because of any material need. The crime should be the focus, not the intent behind it.
We have food stamps and charity for "necessary items." It's 2019--the idea that the modern poor are stealing food to avoid starvation or keep themselves clothed is hilariously archaic thinking. The modern poor have neck tattoos, weed, cell phones, guns and, commonly, too many calories.
Am I really reading here that shop-lifting is a crime committed only by the desperately poor? This is why trials are overseen (or should be) by a judge who has the good sense & discretion to determine the difference. And, most juries can tell the difference. I wonder why this DA is too lazy to think about the matter.
No, you are not reading here that shop-lifting is a crime committed only by the desperately poor. That is part of how the DA's policy is being misrepresnted, though.
Post a Comment