As a criminal defense attorney in a large suburb of Seattle, I tend to represent a large number of thieves. It may be a surprise to some of you, but there is a great deal of diversity in the theft community. I divide perpetrators of theft into two categories: 1) the unsympathetic thief and 2) the sympathetic thief.
In the first category, I represent the drug addicts who steal your car stereos and the traffickers who steal and then sell their wares on the black market. I have the 18-22 year old women who steal Seven and Juicy Couture because their wealthy parents won't buy $200 jeans for their young adult children. (I did not have any idea what Seven jeans were until starting my current job, I thought Fergie was singing about wearing a size seven). I have young women and men who steal to see if they can get away with it . They usually buy many items and then add an additional freebie to their purse or pocket. On the face of it, all of these individuals look like pariahs.
In the second sympathetic category, I have the homeless men and women who literally steal a sandwich from Safeway. I represent individuals with mental health issues who have serious impulse control problems and have tremendous difficulty keeping themselves from pocketing things (usually small and weird) from the local drugstore. In addition, I have actually had young mothers who steal food, diapers and medicine for their young children. Although, this second category of thieves are also taking things that don't belong to them, they are much more sympathetic to me and the court system.
The first group commit the same exact crime as the second, but we naturally gravitate our affection to the second group. The sympathetic and unsympathetic thieves both know what they are doing when they steal and have the intent to carry out their crimes. Both groups are equally guilty of their thefts. However, my sympathetic thieves get less jail time, lower fines and fewer long term repercussions from their actions. Why? Because the second group is deemed to have better motivations for their actions than the first group.
I can almost bring a judge to tears (okay, not quite tears) explaining that my client stole tylenol because she knew it would make her toddler feel better and she did not have the educational background to access resources like WIC. But I never get very far trying to explain why my client needed the juicy couture handbag with the gold chain clasp.
And I agree with the sentiment, the second group does deserve a better shake than the first, but I keep wondering why. The actions of my two groups of clients are not different, just their motivations......And this is where I started visualizing my own reasons for not stealing.
In my example, I picture myself walking into a store. It is always Nordstrom or Bartell Drugs. I go to the a section of the store with costume jewelry and pick up a long silver chain off the rack. I put it in my pocket and walk around the store looking to see if anyone is watching. I visualize myself walking out of the store with the necklace and the first thing I see is a "loss prevention officer" (the new PC term for a security guard), who proceeds to take me to the back office. Then I see the police officer questioning me and hand cuffing me. I fast forward to the future and see myself living in my parents' basement because no one wants to hire someone with a theft on their record. I don't steal, because I do not like the risks or consequences of getting caught.
What I don't think about (until I examine my motivations) as I am visualizing my crime. is that my friends and neighbors have to pay higher prices for their purchases because of my poor behavior. I don't think about the horrendous example I am setting for my son. I don't think about the loss of trust that my thieving behavior creates in society. I am just as selfish in this example and thoughtless as my most unsympathetic clients. I am just too risk adverse to steal.
In my example, my motives for not stealing were just as selfish as the motives of the girl stealing juicy couture, but the court isn't punishing me or rewarding me for my poor motivations. I didn't do anything wrong, so why should I get punished(and trust me, I agree that I should not get punished for my thoughts, we don't live in Minority Report). so, why is there a difference in how we treat the juicy couture thief and the mother who steals medicine for her kid? They both are committing the same crime. In some ways, I feel like they should get treated the same, but intuitively, I don't want my sympathetic and unsympathetic clients treated the same way by the court system. I want mom with tylenol to have her case dismissed and I want juicy couture girl to go to jail for a few days to learn a lesson.
Maybe, we, as a society are only supposed to look at people's motives when they behave badly....?
Or, more likely, is it that we assume that the people with bad motivations for stealing have done it before and will do it again, so we want to punish them more(but then we are just punishing people for crimes they have not yet committed)?
Grrr. Google ate my response. Okay, shorter response than the first.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you might be considering "consequence" in the above cases over motivation. Consequence is important, but I think when we look at the two cases, we are concerned about motivation - the one who buys drugs to give to her son because he's sick does play better than the one who buys drugs to sell on the black market. It's because we intuitvely believe that someone buying tylenol for a kid is doing so out of a less-selfish motive, even if partly selfish.
Thomas Aquinas says that the person who is stealing out of necessity is not doing something unlawful. He recognizes that people will have different views of necessity (i.e. the couture-stealing girl may well think she NEEDS the bag, but she's not been well-formed), but as a society we recognize the needs of food, barebones clothing, and medicine as legit. (See http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article7)
Which is to say, you may be doing something selfish in not really thinking of all the consequences - but if you really have no money (or even just believe you have no access to money) and your son has been screaming for four days because he's got a migraine and you know there's a med out there that could help - so last legs and you want to help him - wouldn't you?
One of the ways the Catholic tradition has understood that conundrum is as seeing that we as a society have not been just enough in ensuring that all people have the things they truly need - so the mother who steals food should have a lighter sentence. She's committed a crime, maybe out of selfish motives, but some objects make us recognize the fault of society as well.
I have to admit that part of my problem in the conundrum is envy. I would that my biggest problem was that I wanted a pair of seven jeans. At the same time, part of the problem is guilt. How hard have I tried to make sure the kid down the road isn't suffering? But as a jury member, I would be asking myself a third question. Say this mother didn't steal the Tylonal? What kind of mother would that make her? She is living a lose/lose proposition.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I would ask myself the same questions when it comes to addictions I perceive (I'd so like to be a better person, if I'm honest this is definitely about perception) as real. I'd have to ask myself what I had done to prevent the addiction, because really, it isn't all so easy as choosing not to be an addict. There but by the grace go I. I am I willing to make the necessity of that cycle worse by sending this person to jail? Hmm. Maybe I wouldn't find myself on a jury.
As for cost-benefit analysis, I find that they're only useful when one can afford to make the safer option.