Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Authority Intervention in Crimes
Asiina
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Alright, this is the third time I'm going to try to write this OP and have it make sense.
At what point should someone involve the authorities when dealing with a minor crime.
Just to throw out some possible examples: A child breaks your window by accident, should you call the police or their parents? A friend breaks something of yours during a party. Do you charge them with vandalism or make them pay for what they broke/forgive them. An employee is caught stealing for his employer. Should he be arrested or just made to pay back what he stole and fired. All of these examples people deal with the crime themselves, rather than involving the authorities.
Some people would argue that involving the police in petty crimes is a waste of resources. It also ends up involving otherwise law abiding people with the criminal justice system, which can have some fairly negative consequences.
But where is the line drawn?
Is it based on age where minors should be excused? Well minors can still commit fairly heinous crimes that should definitely involve the police (murder, rape, etc.)
Is it intent? Should we just write off accidents as accidents? You still call the police if someone hits you with their car, even if its an accident.
Monetary value? What about crimes that don't have a money figure easily attached that can be paid or worked back.
If retribution involves committing another crime? Obviously we can't have vigilante or street justice happening en masse. The authorities must be brought in at some point. But there does tend to be sympathy for those who commit crimes in retribution. People who kill or injure those who are guilty of killing or raping a family member are given quite a bit of sympathy by the media and the public.
There must be some line drawn, but where and why?
At what point should someone involve the authorities when dealing with a minor crime.
Just to throw out some possible examples: A child breaks your window by accident, should you call the police or their parents? A friend breaks something of yours during a party. Do you charge them with vandalism or make them pay for what they broke/forgive them. An employee is caught stealing for his employer. Should he be arrested or just made to pay back what he stole and fired. All of these examples people deal with the crime themselves, rather than involving the authorities.
Some people would argue that involving the police in petty crimes is a waste of resources. It also ends up involving otherwise law abiding people with the criminal justice system, which can have some fairly negative consequences.
But where is the line drawn?
Is it based on age where minors should be excused? Well minors can still commit fairly heinous crimes that should definitely involve the police (murder, rape, etc.)
Is it intent? Should we just write off accidents as accidents? You still call the police if someone hits you with their car, even if its an accident.
Monetary value? What about crimes that don't have a money figure easily attached that can be paid or worked back.
If retribution involves committing another crime? Obviously we can't have vigilante or street justice happening en masse. The authorities must be brought in at some point. But there does tend to be sympathy for those who commit crimes in retribution. People who kill or injure those who are guilty of killing or raping a family member are given quite a bit of sympathy by the media and the public.
There must be some line drawn, but where and why?
Asiina on
Posts
Why must there be a concrete point at which we convert accidents to criminal behavior? If there actually is a line, I would assume that it is flexible and perpetually moving based on the situation.
But let's say that happens with a friend of a friend of a friend at a party or something, I might be more inclined to involve the police/courts because I have no guarantee that the person provided me with their real info or ever seeing them again. Getting the police/courts involved, even for a simple report, atleast gets the information out there and available.
the amount and time and frustration currently in the legal system prevents the use of legal avenues for minor compensation unless you are absolutely crazy or vindicitive.
in other words, unless you have a lot of free time on your hands and don't like your neighbors.... you will go and talk to them first to get them to pay for it.
When the person involved is too young, intellectually unable to understand the severity of what they've done, or, considering the transgression, when the offender's handlers or parents are unable to handle the problem.
Example: I had a friend in the 10th grade that was constantly harassed by his girlfriend's ex boyfriend. Basically bitter over their breakup and took to occasionally insulting my friend and his new girlfriend.
Friend informed the teacher, who informed the principal, who brought the kid into the principal's office and was scolded. Nothing happened. Harassment continued. Repeat. This time kid's parents are called. Nothing happens. Issue continues. Friend again tells principal. Nothing happens. Friend busts dick wads nose, cops are called, and friend is arrested.
What my friend did is technically wrong, even though the kid deserved it. The issue should have been placed into the confines of the law the moment it became clear that the bully wasn't going to stop.
This also reminds me of an episode of King of the Hill, where Hank is being bugged by a little kid always causing mischief and damaging Hank's lawn. Hank complains to the parents, who brush it off as their child "expressing himself". Little kid was a prick. Again, confines of the law, kid should have been punished, parents reprimanded, and end of discussion.
Instead, they got a whole 30 minutes worth of episode out of something that could have been nipped in the bud.
But what determines that line? I would imagine most people would agree that YOU are the douchebag if you call the cops on the kid playing baseball, but that if you don't involve the police when someone breaks into your home then you are also being ridiculous. There are some set of social standards here in what crimes are and are not acceptable to go to the police about. I'm asking us to determine what these are.
Example: My neighbors next door were loud last night. I could have called the cops who would have told them to keep it down and, while kind of dickish, well within my rights in the off chance I think they're being threatening. Instead I just banged the wall a couple times and they settled down, but it's important for the option to be there.
So I think I see it from a monetary value side I guess.
Intent does, of course, play a very large role. The offence of Mischief (which is the closest we get to vandalism here in Canada) requires intent, so if a kid breaks your window by accident, then there's no point in calling the police because there is no chance of successful prosecution. You might be able to sue the kid for negligence, but that's a waste of time too, most likely.
I suppose if I were to propose a line, it would be to call the cops whenever it's not a waste of your time to call the cops, but that's so vague as to be meaningless.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
I would argue that these social standards differ from person to person making it impossible to achieve an accurate definition.
If you hold these standards for yourself (Well, I would just ask them to pay for it rather than go to the cops) would and should you expect that from others?
Yes. Police and courts aren't free, nor underworked.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Exactly. I only really say what I say because of personal experiences with authority. Even on the right side of the law I almost exclusively have poor encounters with officers.
They are over-worked, and a lot of them are jaded.
I have plenty of first hand evidence of my town cop being an asshole just because he can be.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
1. The threat of harm is severe.
2. No other institution or party is capable of addressing the problem.
No, but you'd probably be a more satisfied person if the guy spent a few nights in jail. But small stuff like that never gets to or through court.
I know that I would, personally, feel better if that douche bag had to deal with some sort of consequence (other than maybe sore knuckles?) for having hit a guy for talking to "his girl".
A guy spending a few nights in jail helps nothing.
Well he has just gotten away with assault, and now knows he can get away with assault. That's how it would make me a bad person. Suppose I feel just fine knowing that "his girl" is either pissed at him or not worth my attention after such an altercation, with no further need for personal satisfaction. The point in going to the police would be to make sure that people don't get away with assault.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Isn't this just revenge? In this situation the police don't need to be involved to civilly resolve it, but it's socially acceptable because "ha ha fuck that guy"? That doesn't really make sense.
This too. Doesn't letting a crime slide just make it more likely to happen again? Maybe not to you but to someone else. If you are naturally forgiving, aren't you just enabling these people?
Well, the argument is that the police do have to be involved, because otherwise I just taught a guy that he can go around punching people in bars if he doesn't like them.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
I certainly am, but I'm also enabling myself to continue enjoying my night on the town and get home and in bed before 8am tomorrow by dodging several hours interacting with the police and potentially a forced trip to the hospital that I can't afford for something that will heal on its own anyway.
Edit: I also avoid providing my name to my attacker.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Of course, I don't think that a couple nights (or 1) in jail would make a difference to a person that hit you because you were having a conversation with his girlfriend. But then again if you file a report, and he does this again in the future to someone else and they file a report as well then there's a pattern showing the legal system that this guy is a raging asshole that needs some time away from the civilized world.
I'm not convinced prison will be more effective at dissuading his entitlement complex than losing girls would.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Nerd fantasy/wishful thinking?
I'm not, actually. Frankly I'd expect him to get a blowjob out of it.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
at a bar people get drunk and get into fights over less stupid shit than that.
don't assume that the only reason he threw a punch was because he was a "huge dick"
nice guys do stupid things when drunk and threatened.
Yeah the bolded part is definitely true. I just think that while it's (in my opinion) not worth your time to spend on either the BS timewasting you'd have to go through with the police OR continuing with her, it's going a bit too far to assume that "someone else" (in this case his girl) will deliver the consequences sorely needed for this over-aggro prick.
At a certain point, we all have to take responsibility for our own physical safety. The cops can't be there to protect everyone everywhere.
The part about the satisfaction might be revenge yes, I'm strange in a way that I don't see it as something wrong to enjoy getting back at people who's hurt me. In the scenario VC wrote here, I'd probably contact police for the following reasons:
A) So that the guy won't beat anyone else up.
B) He might realize he did something wrong and change his life around so he does not do it again at any later occasion.
C) It would make me very satisfied to make the guys life less enjoyable, in this case knowing he spends the night in jail or whatever might come out of contacting the police.
Reason C might or might not be most important to me at the time I make the call to contact police.
Also, "caught stealing" can be any number of things. Office supplies... eh. Whatever. Skimming cash from the register? How much? Stealing expensive lab/computing equipment or stealing proprietary/private data... now we're into real larceny and we're calling the cops. (And, yes... I've had to make that call before.)
I stole that example from the H/A thread, where it was essentially taking cash from the register.
As for the whole "satisfaction" thing. What if I'm really pissed that a friend of a friend broke my xbox and I think getting the police involved will teach him a lesson. But if I was having a good day I'd be more likely to let it slide. Should "whether I feel like being a dick or not" really be the standard in whether a crime is worth going to the cops? Should someone be judged as a dick for doing so?
Yah sure that guy shouldn't have punched you or broken your stuff, but he committed a crime and isn't it wrong for people to treat you badly because you choose to actually pursue the technically correct course of action?
Nope. The only time you're a dick for going to the police is when there are no reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed. Otherwise it's entirely up to you to decide if it's worth your time and effort.
generally speaking this is why bars have bouncers, so the cops do not get involved.
Jail is where people are held prior to trial for short periods if they can't make bail, or if they only have sentences of a few months.