Pretend you’re a juror.
Person A steals Person B’s car, and is caught. During his trial, it is revealed that Person B bought the car with the proceeds of a theft that he himself committed. Person B’s victim has since died and left no heirs. Person A, who is on trial, argues that he did not commit theft, since Person B is not the legitimate owner of the car – in fact, there is no legitimate owner. You are on the jury. Do you think Person A is guilty of theft or not?
This is a "two wrongs make a right" moral puzzle. The legal part is clear, and the moral part isn't that troubling either.
Recall when I was a corrections officers, thieves were the real scum among inmates.
I also recall a Brit contract murderer who got along with everybody and was polite to the officers.
Murderers aren't hard to boss, but that's only general prison population relatively speaking.
The prison I worked at IS named after an officer who got murdered by a cop killer in a segregation unit that was not part of death row.
Shoulda been death row! Thanks, justice system.
By the way, when a gangsta Glocks a gangsta, a quick drop from the end of a rope is too good for him..
To hell with all the so-called "humane" goody two-shoes medicate them unto oblivion and get sued if you mess it up bull crap.
A bullet is cheaper than a rope, by the way.
I sat for two juries in the last 10 years, and because I actually could read biomedical images (and therefore could be an independent thinking juror), I was (of course) not selected when the juries were winnowed from 14 to 6. Those unfortunate doctors could not get a jury of their peers (including other doctors).
Yes......ownership of the car was not Person A. He was not specifically stealing from B, so B's ownership has no bearing on the criminality of the act. The car belongs to someone.....just not Mr. A!
Now, if this was a civil suit everything would be diffrent....Mr. B could not allege that he was damaged by the theft so therefore A would be found to be innocent in a civil case because B did not own the car.
viously--someone other that Person A being owner
of the car!
hands, which would be a separate charge. (See
Ayn Rand's "The Nature of Government" in The
Virtue of Selfishness.)
B. If you steal my money, you are not entitled to
anything you buy with it.
I say Person C could sue Person B and get a judgment that would force Person B to sell assets and garnish wages to pay damages to Person C. The police might save Person C the trouble my charging Person B with a crime and making restitution to Person C part of the criminal penalty. This is helpful to Person C b/c there's no debtors' prison, but criminal court could give Person B the choice of jail or making restitution, an indirect debtors' prison.
But I say the car belonged to Person B, even though he happens to be a thief himself.
-Person C earned money in an honest transaction.
-Person B steals Person C's money.
-Person C dies and leave no heirs.
-Person B trades the stolen money with Person D to get a car in a transaction that's honest except Person B isn't the rightful owner of the money.
-Person A steals the car from Person B.
I think morally we have to look at each theft individually. Person D shouldn't have to verify the origin of the money to sell her car. Person B's stealing money doesn't make it open-season for anyone who wants to steal things he bought with the money.
I think it's still the same type of theft, but that may be because I see money as fungible. What if we change it to be one-of-a-kind heirloom? For some reason that makes Person B seem less like a "victim" of Person A and more like just another criminal.
I'll have to think about it. I think of stolen property as going back to the original owner, even if it's sold. That makes me think of the money that now in the hands of Person D who sold Person B the car having no idea the money she was receiving was stolen. My first thought is money is fungible, and how do you know Person D received those exact same dollars belonging to Person C. I have to think about further.