Screw it. This notion that we should only punish violent crime, and all other crime should be ignored needs to go. Look at this chain of logic presented above.
>> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be
extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
>But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
The implied conclusion here is "We're allowing it if people don't guard it like it's ft Knox."
The whole point of a legal system, the codification of crime and law enforcement is to stop things like this. To ensure that people cannot unilaterally and directly harm other people.
Which is precisely what "punishment" does. Try being less vindictive and more understanding about the root circumstances that lead someone to perform an act of desperation.
Nope. The criminal is the one who needs to realize and internalise his desperation, and move on to a better life. Everyone has needs, get in line sunshine.
Obviously theft is not a long-term solution. Being a lowlife is no way to live. There are people working the skin off their bones on two jobs just to barely live. And some entitled shmuck wants the easy way out?
Not to meander too much, but I think this is a genuinely interesting question. Is theft the 'easy way out'? I'm not so sure. It's a job like any other, requiring skill to be successful, and comes with a slew of stressors that are non-issues in legal jobs, like the risk of apprehension for starters. The higher risk may also at times yield higher reward, but I wouldn't say necessarily 'easier'. I think showing up for a generic 9-to-5 is significantly easier than robbing trains successfully.
The containers don't have big signs telling them which ones to steal for the food and which ones to ignore because they only contain TVs and covid tests.
If you are desperate, you steal anything and try to sell it to buy food and hygiene products.
I would be extremely interested in what definition of punishment you are using where punishment is defined as not being unilateral, which would mean it's some sort of bilateral punishment with consent of the punished party?
>> Additionally, mail theft laws which include prison as a consequence should be extended to package thefts if they don't already cover them.
>But it is a nonviolent crime. It seems like finding some way to prevent the thefts is better.
The implied conclusion here is "We're allowing it if people don't guard it like it's ft Knox."
The whole point of a legal system, the codification of crime and law enforcement is to stop things like this. To ensure that people cannot unilaterally and directly harm other people.