Woman jailed for not returning 2005 video rental

[Vort]

Thank you for your clear explanation, JAG. That puts a reasonable spin on the idea. But I still reject it.

Using that logic, we would never make any laws at all that were not directly about life or major property integrity. A capital-L Libertarian might think that's just peachy, but most people see a need for legal enforcement of more minor matters. Petty theft, for example, should not be punishable by firing squad, but that does not mean that it's legal to walk off with a candy bar you haven't paid for.

If you steal a candy bar, you get a very minor (but real) penalty. If you try to evade arrest for your petty crime, you have then escalated it to a much more serious matter. If you resist arrest by, for example, attacking the police officer, you are now guilty of battery and the cop's life might be endangered by your actions.

This seems common sense to me. It's absurd to claim that you're shooting someone for stealing a candy bar. You are not. You are shooting them to protect a police officer. That the matter arose over a stolen candy bar is of absolutely no moment whatsoever.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thank you for your clear explanation, JAG. That puts a reasonable spin on the idea. But I still reject it.

What? The horror! A pox on you, sir; I say--a pox!!!

Using that logic, we would never make any laws at all that were not directly about life or major property integrity.

Well, not necessarily. One just bears in mind, in criminalizing a "minor" activity, that there is a "compulsory" element here that ought not to be invoked lightly; and you try to weigh out all of the factors at play to determine whether it's worth using the police power of the state to basically limit individual liberty. For example--stealing a candy bar doesn't involve "major property integrity" in a single instance; but if not stopped then repeat offenses by a wide segment of the population can be come a problem--and also lead to attitudinal changes that could contribute to an even more dire social breakdown. So I'm fine saying "yes, let's make petty theft a class C misdemeanor", even knowing that the value of the property involved in these kinds of offenses will be nominal. (I handled a theft case out of Pleasant Grove a couple months ago where a young lady paid my boss's firm a four-figure sum to defend her after she stole a $1.50 roll of tape from a grocery store. Oi . . . )

If you steal a candy bar, you get a very minor (but real) penalty. If you try to evade arrest for your petty crime, you have then escalated it to a much more serious matter. If you resist arrest by, for example, attacking the police officer, you are now guilty of battery and the cop's life might be endangered by your actions.

Agreed; but let's replace our hypothetical budding kleptomaniac with a conservative Christian photographer in New Mexico who faces government sanction because of her refusal to photograph a gay wedding. Is she not being "compelled" to violate her conscience? Is not the threat of violence in the face of continued resistance, a major element of that compulsion?

That, I think, is where the "the really harsh sanctions don't punish your crime; they punish your obstinacy" argument really breaks down--when government passes a law requiring you to proactively engage in an activity you find morally abhorrent.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Just_A_Guy