[Retric]

I completely agree. However, a large chunk of society would take it even if they had never stolen anything before and did not intend to commit a crime that day.

PS: Look up Duty of Care, people can share responsibility even if a third party is commuting a crime. Placing a 10 lb solid gold statue on your roof and advertising this is is not just negligent, but flat out dangerous.

[TeMPOraL]

What you say shows the exact same mistake (but in opposite direction) as the "victim-blaming" crowd - conflating moral responsibility with practical wisdom. Yes, putting that gold statue on your roof is just stupid, because of the world we live in. No, that doesn't make the burglars less responsible, morally and legally, for robbing you. Those two statements are true at the same time.

[Retric]

What makes you think I disagree with that idea?

If everyone walked around holding a loaded gun, you would see far more gun violence. That has nothing to do with morality, just impulse control.

I am not saying people are not responsible for their own actions. Just that forms of crime prevention do actually work.

[TeMPOraL]

> What makes you think I disagree with that idea?

The whole subthread kind of looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that theft is theft.

> I am not saying people are not responsible for their own actions. Just that forms of crime prevention do actually work.

So we agree on that. My point is that it's not either-or - effective crime prevention doesn't make a crime not a crime.

[Retric]

> looks like you're disagreeing with the idea that theft is theft

I don't. If you're reading that into what I said that's on you.

A mass murder will commit fewer crimes in solitary confinement. That does not mean solitary confinement makes them a better person, or not a murder. It simply prevents future murders. So, the concepts are independent.