Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Buying stolen property

quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 6:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been thinking about whether or not buying stolen property is in fact a criminal action, and to be honest I'm not sure if it should be. I see the thief as the one who committed a criminal act and should be held accountable, but I don't see how the buyer can be held responsible for it. I'm primarily interested in the Libertarian perspective of this, since wouldn't this mean that countries that purchased cotton produced by slavery be criminals as well? Or people who purchase diamonds from companies that buy blood diamonds? Or people who just buy products from foreign governments that rob their people?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:04:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:01:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
if you know the property is stolen, then yes it is a crime.

I think he was referring to libertarian legal theory, not a descriptive account of actually-existent laws.

In any case I don't know.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:15:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:04:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:01:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
if you know the property is stolen, then yes it is a crime.

I think he was referring to libertarian legal theory, not a descriptive account of actually-existent laws.

In any case I don't know.

No, that's what I generally believe.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No. This is for the same reason that I think child porn viewing shouldn't be illegal. If you focus on the viewers/buyers, you aren't focusing on the source. Cut the source of the stolen goods and the sale of said goods plummets.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:25:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:22:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
No. This is for the same reason that I think child porn viewing shouldn't be illegal. If you focus on the viewers/buyers, you aren't focusing on the source. Cut the source of the stolen goods and the sale of said goods plummets.

but is it fair that if you pay for a good/service with your own money, that you should lose it because it was stolen.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 7:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:25:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:22:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
No. This is for the same reason that I think child porn viewing shouldn't be illegal. If you focus on the viewers/buyers, you aren't focusing on the source. Cut the source of the stolen goods and the sale of said goods plummets.

but is it fair that if you pay for a good/service with your own money, that you should lose it because it was stolen.

When did I say that the property should be taken away?
Now that I think about it however, they should just get their money back and the stolen item should be returned to its owner.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:06:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:22:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
No. This is for the same reason that I think child porn viewing shouldn't be illegal. If you focus on the viewers/buyers, you aren't focusing on the source. Cut the source of the stolen goods and the sale of said goods plummets.

Um, I don't care where the focus is or isn't, there is no part about child pornography (which is child molestation...recorded for posterity?) which should be legal.

Beside, when police started targeting Johns in their battle to keep prostitution at bay, it was infinitely more effective than targeting the girls, themselves.

If there were no market for stolen goods (goods which destroy wealth when they are sold), no one would steal. Stop prosecuting people who knowingly buy stolen goods, and watch theft go through the roof.

Your overall premise, beside being morally reprehensible, is completely flawed.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:19:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:09:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ask yourself which answer improves society. Not which one adheres best to ideology.

Well technically speaking, forcing a portion of those who don't improve the GDP of a country to kill the other portion would in effect increase the GDP right? I guess it depends on how you define benefit right?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 12:48:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:51:44 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I've been thinking about whether or not buying stolen property is in fact a criminal action, and to be honest I'm not sure if it should be. I see the thief as the one who committed a criminal act and should be held accountable, but I don't see how the buyer can be held responsible for it. I'm primarily interested in the Libertarian perspective of this, since wouldn't this mean that countries that purchased cotton produced by slavery be criminals as well? Or people who purchase diamonds from companies that buy blood diamonds? Or people who just buy products from foreign governments that rob their people?

It is a crime to buy stolen property because it is similar to being an accomplice after the fact, like a person who holds onto a murder weapon. They are furthering the crime by letting the thief profit from their actions.

Now, two reasons why the possessor is targeted instead of the thief:
1. It would be too easy for a thief to say they bought it, and simply finger an innocent person. Furthermore, it is difficult to prove that an innocent buyer bought from a particular thief, as the only evidence is hearsay (generally).
2. Generally, the charges will only be filed and sustained if there was ample reason to assume foul play. For example, a Rolex vendor selling out of his trench coat or a new plasma TV at a garage sale/Craigslist with an asking price of 25% of market value.
If the person feasibly did not know it was stolen, chances are a jury won't convict, or charges even filed. Example: a garage sale that was selling kids stuff also was selling a used kids bike for $20, which was stolen from a nearby school.

The course of action is the possessor returns the stolen property, then they sue the thief for damages. It will be difficult, but less difficult than proving he stole it in a criminal trial. This possible detainment and difficulty receiving damages is the only real way to stop thieves, by attacking the demand, selling the goods makes burglary less profitable.

Robbery is one of the hardest cases to close, IMO, and generally not worth the man-hours. The evidence is usually gone, there are few leads without witnesses, and forensics are generally of no use (unless a known criminal).
My work here is, finally, done.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 9:46:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The person it was stolen from has a better claim to it than the buyer. A person who knowingly buys a stolen good is a participant in the act.

That said

Stop prosecuting people who knowingly buy stolen goods, and watch theft go through the roof.
This is nonsense, plausible deniability or even actual lack of knowledge is easy.

Beside, when police started targeting Johns in their battle to keep prostitution at bay, it was infinitely more effective than targeting the girls, themselves.
Effective at getting arrests or effective at stopping prostitution? Not that I'm in favor of either.

Um, I don't care where the focus is or isn't, there is no part about child pornography (which is child molestation...recorded for posterity?) which should be legal.
What if the child consents?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 1:48:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 9:46:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The person it was stolen from has a better claim to it than the buyer. A person who knowingly buys a stolen good is a participant in the act.

That said

Stop prosecuting people who knowingly buy stolen goods, and watch theft go through the roof.
This is nonsense, plausible deniability or even actual lack of knowledge is easy.
He did say "knowingly", so his comment does make sense, as there will be little deterant.

Beside, when police started targeting Johns in their battle to keep prostitution at bay, it was infinitely more effective than targeting the girls, themselves.
Effective at getting arrests or effective at stopping prostitution? Not that I'm in favor of either.

Um, I don't care where the focus is or isn't, there is no part about child pornography (which is child molestation...recorded for posterity?) which should be legal.
What if the child and parents/guardians consent?

Fixed
My work here is, finally, done.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 2:35:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Buying cotton produced by slaves at a time when slavery was legal may be immoral, but it was not illegal.

The laws against buying and selling stolen goods apply to people who know they are stolen. It ought to be illegal because the person knows that the goods do not belong to the person selling them. Therefore the transaction is fraud.

A person innocently buying stolen goods cannot take title to the property because the person selling the goods did not have the title to sell. The police generally don't arrest innocent buyers, but the buyer cannot keep them because ownership still resides with rightful owner.

I think that in general it is reasonable to make facilitating crime illegal. Consider driving the getaway car in a robbery. Driving is perfectly legal, but knowingly facilitating a crime is illegal.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 3:34:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 6:51:44 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I've been thinking about whether or not buying stolen property is in fact a criminal action, and to be honest I'm not sure if it should be. I see the thief as the one who committed a criminal act and should be held accountable, but I don't see how the buyer can be held responsible for it. I'm primarily interested in the Libertarian perspective of this, since wouldn't this mean that countries that purchased cotton produced by slavery be criminals as well? Or people who purchase diamonds from companies that buy blood diamonds? Or people who just buy products from foreign governments that rob their people?

It's always going to be about supply and demand, if you allow people to legally buy stolen goods then there will be a demand for stolen goods and more goods will be stolen. Both the stealing and the buying of the stolen goods need illegal as a deterent.

That's my opinion, and I have no idea what the libertarian position is, in fact, even after hearing thier views expressed I still usually have no idea what their position is.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 3:38:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 7:22:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
No. This is for the same reason that I think child porn viewing shouldn't be illegal. If you focus on the viewers/buyers, you aren't focusing on the source. Cut the source of the stolen goods and the sale of said goods plummets.

That's nonsense, if you focus on the problem then you necessarily will focus on both sides of the transaction, usually the best way to find the sellers is to follow the buyers. If you eliminate the demand and source goes away, as long as there is a demand, there will always be somebody willing to supply it, whether it's stolen goods or child porn. .
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 5:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 12:06:11 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/14/2012 7:22:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
No. This is for the same reason that I think child porn viewing shouldn't be illegal. If you focus on the viewers/buyers, you aren't focusing on the source. Cut the source of the stolen goods and the sale of said goods plummets.

Your overall premise, beside being morally reprehensible, is completely flawed.

Completely agree, especially the "morally reprehensible" part.

What the hell bb, I can't see how you can compare stolen goods to child porn, everything about it should be illegal as hell, just thinking about viewing child porn should be illegal.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 9:45:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 1:48:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2012 9:46:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The person it was stolen from has a better claim to it than the buyer. A person who knowingly buys a stolen good is a participant in the act.

That said

Stop prosecuting people who knowingly buy stolen goods, and watch theft go through the roof.
This is nonsense, plausible deniability or even actual lack of knowledge is easy.
He did say "knowingly", so his comment does make sense, as there will be little deterant.
There will be little deterrent anyway because it's easy enough to accomplish the same goals without the knowingly element.


Beside, when police started targeting Johns in their battle to keep prostitution at bay, it was infinitely more effective than targeting the girls, themselves.
Effective at getting arrests or effective at stopping prostitution? Not that I'm in favor of either.

Um, I don't care where the focus is or isn't, there is no part about child pornography (which is child molestation...recorded for posterity?) which should be legal.
What if the child and parents/guardians consent?

Fixed
Why would you care what those damned tyrants say?
Consensual pedophilia isn't really compatible with legal parental authority, too many kids can be ordered by their parents to "consent."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:45:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 1:48:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/17/2012 9:46:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Um, I don't care where the focus is or isn't, there is no part about child pornography (which is child molestation...recorded for posterity?) which should be legal.
What if the child and parents/guardians consent?

Oh pulease, consent has nothing to do with it, that's like the rapist who says "She was asking for it" because of the way the victim was dressed. A child can't legally consent, a parent/guardian providing consent is breaking the law and should be subject to the harshest punishment allowable.

There is one and only one reason to argue for the legalization of child porn and that reason falls to the demand side of the equation which is specifically what/who the child porn laws are in place to protect children from.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 8:18:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I understand what you guys are saying about the buyer being an accomplice, but what does that mean for consumers of slave labor? Or when people who purchased goods produced by the British empire that they acquired from their territories they stole? Does that mean those people are criminals? Shouldn't they be forced to pay reparations?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.