Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

When I was young I knew people who stole (juvenile delinquents and some not so juvenile). Sometimes it was food sometimes it was other things. It was very rarely because they needed to. They were idle and did it because they could and would not get punished (back then cameras were not as prevalent.) Point is, more people steal because it's "easy" more than because they "have no alternative".

People sometimes think just because they would only steal as a last resort just before death that other people treat theft with the same moral compass. No, they don't. Some people are plain opportunists.

View on HN

An easy way to verify is to see what is being stolen or looted. It is almost never produce, bags of beans or rice. It is often luxury brands, alcohol, electronics and stuff like that.

I don’t think we need more mandatory sentences or stricter laws, but simply turning the other way and not punishing this kind of behavior is also going to backfire. There has to be a balance.

I suspect it’s all designed to artificially reduce the crime stats (“if we don’t process or book them no crime was committed”) while at the same time getting extra points for social justice. Two birds with one stone.

> turning the other way and not punishing this kind of behavior

Where do we have data that that is happening?

> Where do we have data that that is happening?

It’s in the letter being discussed.

Of course people aren't stealing fucking bags of rice and beans. Why would they? Stealing a Louis Vitton bag selling it, then buying food, is far better in every way.

> Why would they?

Because one idea is that they have to feed their children. It’s an urgent, desperate need. They are not doing it for fun, they don’t want to be criminals.

Well, it is easy to explain stealing a bag of beans to a judge, and most of all, to the starving children at home, than justifying waiting for a train, cutting the lock, getting the luxury Louis Vuitton sunglasses, bringing them home, putting them up for sale on Craigslist and waiting for offers, so then, they can finally go to the store and buy the bag of beans.

The story of feeding hungry kids doesn’t work as well in the later case.

People also need to pay rent and all kinds of other expenses. Not just eat.

You're right, stealing the food directly is more immediate. But assuming you're planning ahead or are selling to a known buyer, the Vuitton bag is far better.

Pragmatically - You have to steal fewer items with less security, so less risk of getting caught. It's lighter to move. You can use that money for clothing or rent. You can use that money to buy a lot more food.

Meanwhile, it seems as trivial to justify to a judge. You needed food, so you stole something to get food. Certainly, I consider it to be at least as moral as stealing the food directly, so I don't understand why it would be harder to justify. Unless your contending that stealing beans is obviously for feeding kids, but stealing a bag isn't? That is, you're asking for leniency and not debating morals. In which case I would ask you if motive matters to a judge or if that means your kids are more likely to get taken away or can you not get the same effect by just keeping better records? Receipts of how your spent the bag money.

Do we know these people are participating parents (rather than just of reproductive age)? I’m reminded of the children in India who get mutilated by pimps in order to appear more sympathetic to the people who give beggars money —the pimps only care about the money.

I see people mentioning children the same way people say children when talking about surveillance. It’s usually a tool for sympathy rather than real motive.

I am mainly going with the original narrative that a fundamental reason the people loot and steal is put food on the table —- they hate to have to do it, but they have no other choice when there are hungry mouths to feed. And, how assuming that premise, the actions we see don’t support it well.

I also have my personal experience noticing how a good number of people I knew thoroughly enjoyed the rush and the excitement of it. I couldn’t think of many who ever said they had no choice, had children to feed, but rather they would go on about how they hid from the cops, sold the stuff, such and such was stupid to get caught, etc.

I would like to believe everyone is kind and nice and doesn’t want to do those things, the reality I have been through doesn’t support it at all, sadly.

This was my experience as well. I've been far removed from that crowd. But yes, it was never due to dire need to feed mouths as many like to frame it. It was convenient, it was a rush, it was something to brag about -it was a quick buck. As I mentioned elsewhere, it lead on occasion to these guys ending up in the pen, then getting out and going back to the same thing. Sometimes they'd get hooked up with a real job for some time, but the side thing was always an option. Some people got out of it, some didn't. I've lost track now, so don't know, but some succumbed to addition and didn't end up well.

What's odd is you have people who are very ideological and dogmatic and refuse to believe this is the case. They don't see themselves becoming thieves just because, so therefore no one else would do such a thing.

But look, do people have to be in the mob? Is it risky to be in the mob? Do they not have any other options? Yet, people get in to the mob. It's not lucrative. They could get regular jobs, but no, they like the atmosphere --well, that was years ago before the feds pretty much put a lid on it.

Those are not the people, by and large, ripping open cargo containers on moving trains.

Some are, but your childhood friends aren't the people who are causing this letter to be sent.

The people committing this level of crime do need the income this theft generates to survive.

What a pompous view of what is clearly criminal behaviour. If you don't do the time people will do the crime.

Amazingly, someone on ND had reviewed footage from their drone and saw it had someone pointing a firearm at the drone so alerted people to be cautious around the area. An SJW came out and was like, "is it legal for you to record in public?" They were not concerned about illegal firearm usage, no, their first thought was, were the "rights" of a criminal infringed (no, there is no right to privacy in a public space). Dogma and ideology are amazing.

It's just easier and less risky to not commit crimes, the people who do commit crimes are almost always doing so as a result of some fundamental failure by society to give them tools to earn a living some other way.

If you were in their situation, you'd do exactly as they would, you just had a better situation in your life. We owe it to them to give them that shot.

I know it's easier to blame these people for their choices, but in a lot of cases, there never really was any other choice for them. "Just don't do crime" isn't really a choice you can make when nobody explains to you what else there is to do that gives you any real shot in this world.

I'll repeat, because it's important: you'd do exactly the same thing these people have done, if you had their set of experiences.

It’s a sad fact of life there will always be injustices. People can still make good choices and have positive outcomes in bad environments.

We need to stop trying to be devoid of personal responsibility as a society.

The fact that you think this has anything to do with personal responsibility makes it clear you don’t understand the circumstances these people find themselves in.

Is there anybody in the world under your philosophy that bears personal responsibility for anything immoral that they have done?

This has nothing to do with my personal philosophy and everything to do with what motivates people. Some people are bad yes, but the vast majority of people are not, and would not do bad things if they felt they had alternatives.

Why is it important to you to focus on the bad people, when there are many, many more people who aren't bad?

It has everything to do with your personal philosophy. I haven’t met a good person in my life. Here’s your philosophy: “Some people are bad yes, but the vast majority of people are not”

You’re telling me the vast majority of people wouldn’t take advantage of others if they ended up with serious power.

History and personal experience tell me otherwise. People are not basically good.

That's not a philosophy, that's rigorous observational results from a plethora of psychology studies.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (and so on)

This isn't opinion, and these are just easily accessible sources. There are a lot more, and a lot more rigorous sources, if you're actually interested.

The alignment of incentives and the perception (or lack thereof) of choice does a lot more work than you apparently are aware of.

At this point, it seems like I'm trying to reason you out of an opinion you didn't reason yourself into, which is both sad and futile, so I'm going to stop.

[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-...

[1] https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_science_he...

[2] https://www.zmescience.com/science/humans-are-good-in-nature...

[3] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-animals/20191...

[4] https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/5/23/15516752/science...

[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/good-company-why-we-ne...

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/14/selfis...

[7] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130114-are-we-naturally...

Do you have any evidence for your claims?

Anyway, the question under discussion is whether maybe we should change their experiences, so they don’t do this sort of thing anymore.

I know it’s popular to say that we only need positive reinforcement, that we can accomplish everything good just by saying “yes.”

That is false.

If you need a citation to tell you that it's easier and less risky to not commit crimes, you're not engaging honestly in this conversation.

As for the claim that you'd behave as they would, were you in their situation, that's basic Situational Action Theory [0], a well studied theory in criminology that attempts to explain crimes as moral actions.

The irrational focus on the relatively small number of "because I wanted to" type crimes is very popular in conservative circles, but isn't an accurate or helpful view of why crime is committed, and it's not shared by the plurality of experts who study this topic academically.

[0] https://www.cac.crim.cam.ac.uk/resou/sat

We have daily examples of white collar crime. These are people with well enough paying jobs.

Most people will not embezzle from their company —but some will despite not needing to and being aware of the risks. They just have the opportunity to. The same behavior happens in other spheres.

Most theft is not due to impending dire straights. It’s opportunity for quick cash of loot without needing to go through the tribulations of getting a paying gig.

> If you were in their situation, you'd do exactly as they would, you just had a better situation in your life.

You don't know my situation or my past. I can say that you clearly don't understand criminals, criminality or even destitution.

| you'd do exactly the same thing these people have done, if you had their set of experiences.

Nonsense! It's possible you learned everything you know about people by reading it from a book.

This is a report from the real world: everyone (at least in the US) these days get a "shot" and while some are lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon, most people who are below middle class get lots of extra attention and resources paid for by everyone else (who work for a living). Opportunity is there and is often just left on the table in favor of anti-social (more entertaining) behaviors. Sorry, but it's true. If you want to "owe" other people something, go ahead, I'm tired of paying the bills for other people's sentimentalism.

> most people who are below middle class get lots of extra attention and resources paid for by everyone else (who work for a living).

No, the people that work for a living are the people below middle class, hence why the class below the (petit bourgeois) niddle class in capitalism is known as the “working class”.

sorry my bad. I just meant that there are lots of social programs which are generously paid for by tax payers. Didn't mean misquote Marx...

What I find interesting is that, even here on HN, someone still confuses an anecdote with a representative study.

It may surprise you to learn how many people in my life have not gotten a "shot", how many have, and how many have gotten vastly more than their fair of a "shot" in life. Those are the circumstances, and when you find yourself in similar circumstances, with a similar set of life experiences as someone else, you tend to make similar choices as they would. Humans, generally, act similarly, all else being equal.

To quote MLK, "It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps." [0]

The people who are stealing from these trains are, by and large, men without boots.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8

What's curious to me is the absence of women. If it were people in penury and dire straights, you'd see more women doing it. But we don't. It's guys doing it.

> most people who are below middle class get lots of extra attention and resources paid for by everyone else (who work for a living).

Most of those people are working and paying taxes, as many benefits programs are stipulated on first having a job. Those benefits are also laughably terrible to non-existent, as well, and vary heavily from state to state.

Also, many people who are "below middle class" are not eligible for the programs, anyway. The federal poverty level is something like $12k a year for an individual, and benefits are cut off if you earn more than that.

~12k is the federal level for eligibility, but the actual threshold depends on state definition as most states increase the baseline.

>"The people committing this level of crime do need the income this theft generates to survive."

Later on I knew people who stole electronics --not as juveniles any more. It was just easy money for a night's work. They didn't have to put in 40. Didn't have a foreman. They'd brag about how easy it was...

So, I don't believe they have not alternative but this. It may be an "easier" option compared to other options, but it's not their last option. No. People in the Eastern block had less purchasing power than a poor person in the US. They did not have a culture of thievery. One, they were not a consumerist society and two, they would give no quarter to thieves.

So you think the people you knew growing up represent all people committing crimes?

That's a great way to ignore the problems of people not like you.

I'm sure you'll change your story to further illustrate how evil you think these people are, but the reality is they're not evil, and they don't really have other options, regardless of what went down in your world when you were younger.

We seem to discount their lived experience. Perhaps it might help if you shared your experience? Do you happen to know some of the people involved in these incidents?

If I thought it was relevant I’d share, however it isn’t relevant who I am or what my anecdotes are, so instead I’ll point out your distraction as just that; a distraction from the real problem here, which is inequity.

No matter how many times you say otherwise, people would rather not steal. Fix their circumstances, fix their behavior. If you actually cared about solving the problem, you’d care about helping these people.

But no. For you, this is about petty vindictive retribution. Your inability to empathize with someone not like you creates a cycle of hate that’s self perpetuating, further exacerbating the problem rather than being effective in finding a lasting solution.

There are definitely some people who would rather steal.

You need to get out of your bubble man.

I'm confused about why you think I believe otherwise.

You're making a claim without evidence here. I'd like to believe as you do, but "people would rather not steal" is a statement of faith, not fact.

Well no, it's not a statement of faith, but it is a statement that presupposes you're familiar with human psychology.

I've got a number of other comments here at this point that cite sources which explain things better than I'll ever be able to, if you're actually curious, I recommend you read those sources (and others, "are people good?" is a fairly well trod area of psychology, and indeed philosophy).

Few people are evil. But a lot of people want the easy way out, especially if they are hooked on addictive substances. I knew these kinds of people. when I grew up, our household was in the bottom rung so I had some friends and acquaintances who made poor long term decisions --they may have looked good short term, a nice payday, little work, but then they have little work history or marketable skills when they go looking for a honest job. Occasionally they might get a hookup with a relative who could offer them manual jobs --construction, landscaping, etc. These are the guys who introduce you to fifi bags and other curiosities in life they learn up the river.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com