• Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    This feels disingenuous to me.

    Most crimes are property crimes. All crimes are caused by people stepping outside of the societal bounds we call laws.

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      It sounds like you’ve figured out the point while believing it contradicts.

      Why do you think most crimes are property crimes? Because the law is only to protect property.

      • ToRA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        What about the laws that protect people? Does driving faster than the speed limit or not wearing a seatbelt protect property?

      • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        It sounds like you’ve figured out the point while believing it contradicts.

        I never said it contradicted. I said he was being disingenuous. He’s implying that these are two different things, and that one is better than the other. It’s like saying that your pantry doesn’t hold ingredients for a PB&J, it only holds bread, peanut butter, and jelly.

        Why do you think most crimes are property crimes?

        Because the only other option, to my knowledge, is crime against another person directly, which is pretty well summed up with murder, assault, battery, slander, and libel. There’s a lot of other shitty things a person can do when it comes to property, though.

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          There is a social understanding of “crime” as “immoral behaviour”. Then there is the actual legal definition of “breaking the law”. We may think police are there to stop immoral behaviour, but they are really there to protect property, through enforcing laws that are mainly established to protect property. Make sense now?

          Because the only other option, to my knowledge, is crime against another person directly, which is pretty well summed up with murder, assault, battery, slander, and libel. There’s a lot of other shitty things a person can do when it comes to property, though.

          I think this just demonstrates how well indoctrinated you’ve been into thinking in terms of property.

      • Sordid@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Why do you think most crimes are property crimes? Because the law is only to protect property.

        That’s just blatantly untrue, all kinds of actions are criminalized that have nothing to do with property. My hot take is that most crime is property crime because that’s the kind of crime that the perpetrator actually benefits from. If you steal something, you now have that thing. If you murder someone, you’re not any better off than before (aside from whatever loot your victim might drop, which is generally not worth it).

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          And in a system predicated on private property, that becomes the most heinous crime.

          The only reason there are laws beside theft and fraud etc, us to give the illusion that police are there to protect people. And also, murder and rape are kinda problematic for the bottom line.