Two thieves are arrested for identical crimes. Criminal A stole for his hungry family. Criminal B stole for himself. Should Criminal A serve less time?
I honestly didn't know what I thought when I first saw this post. My mind immediately jumped to Les Miserables, and the story of Jean Valjean. I couldn't find the exact quote but this is from google and my memory: "There was just glass between me and not being hungry anymore, so I broke it..."
Which obviously makes one pity the character and his situation. Now, some may feel Criminal A deserves a lesser sentence for being selfless, assuming Criminal B was also stealing because he was hungry.
I'd like to point out the fact that we don't know if these criminals could pay for whatever it was they stole, or if they even stole food.
Heck, Criminal A could've stolen a big screen TV for his hungry family for all we know, while his "hungry family" was sitting down to dinner.
But maybe I'm reading too deep into the question. At any rate, I believe the sentences shouldn't be judged by what the criminals were thinking (as said by person above) but by their situation. Say the criminal had no money and was starving to death. In a perfect world, shouldn't he be helped to find a job then pay for what he had stolen? But then this gets into why he doesn't have a job in the first place...
It's all a very sticky mess of "what if" and "it depends"'s.
A crime is a crime. That is what I conclude. Your answer depends on whether or not you believe these are truly the same crimes.
Which obviously makes one pity the character and his situation. Now, some may feel Criminal A deserves a lesser sentence for being selfless, assuming Criminal B was also stealing because he was hungry.
I'd like to point out the fact that we don't know if these criminals could pay for whatever it was they stole, or if they even stole food.
Heck, Criminal A could've stolen a big screen TV for his hungry family for all we know, while his "hungry family" was sitting down to dinner.
But maybe I'm reading too deep into the question. At any rate, I believe the sentences shouldn't be judged by what the criminals were thinking (as said by person above) but by their situation. Say the criminal had no money and was starving to death. In a perfect world, shouldn't he be helped to find a job then pay for what he had stolen? But then this gets into why he doesn't have a job in the first place...
It's all a very sticky mess of "what if" and "it depends"'s.
A crime is a crime. That is what I conclude. Your answer depends on whether or not you believe these are truly the same crimes.
Reply
Leave a comment