Why are poor people poor?

That question isn’t really a good barometer is it. Because I, a somewhat well adjusted individual who has been raised well of course haven’t burgled at all. However, some vagrant who’s been raised by someone who knows no better themselves has probably burgled numerous times. If anything, you’re helping to prove my point. Children should be removed from parents who cannot look after them correctly.

Arguably anything that is completely legal is beneficial to society. Low level vagrancy isn’t legal, petty theft isn’t legal, burglary isn’t legal. Or at least, last time I checked.

So by that logic the following is beneficial to society:

Obesity
Alcoholism
Being unemployed
Getting a face tattoo
Smoking 100 cigarettes a day
Cutting yourself
Cheating on your spouse
Legal tax evasion

... I could go on.

These things are wrong in and if themselves and are damaging to society and the individual. Even if the only thing you care about is money is going into the economy* it still probably works out at a net loss overall.

Eg an alcoholic obese smoker might bring in good tax revenue but he will cost the NHS plus additional social costs. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Now I'm not advocating banning smoking or alcohol etc but I am saying that just because something is legal doesn't make it good.

*I can go into why that is wrong too.

Not entirely sure the argument you’re attempting to make here, because I agree for the most part. My point originally was about reducing low level vagrancy, not about the ‘Wall Street killers.’

For what it’s worth all of what you’ve mentioned about are things that don’t directly harm innocent people. They involve other people but don’t harm them. Burglary, theft etc, all harm innocent people. That’s the difference in my eyes.

Arguably anything that is completely legal is beneficial to society.

Burglary and theft are illegal.

The things the poster remarked on are legal. Alcoholism and being unemployed were a couple of examples they gave.

You said...

I think the poster wondered how alcoholism and being unemployed (and the rest of their list) were things which are beneficial to society.

That question isn’t really a good barometer is it. Because I, a somewhat well adjusted individual who has been raised well of course haven’t burgled at all. However, some vagrant who’s been raised by someone who knows no better themselves has probably burgled numerous times. If anything, you’re helping to prove my point. Children should be removed from parents who cannot look after them correctly.

Then what I said was phrased incorrectly. But the point I’m making still stands. I should have mentioned the harm element earlier.

Given you have no counterfactual, how are you so sure that for others changing sentencing affects propensity to burgle.

Like, you admit sentencing makes no difference to whether you'd burgle or not. Why would it make any odds to a vagrant?

Would you take in those children? Plenty about for adoption, have you?

For what it’s worth all of what you’ve mentioned about are things that don’t directly harm innocent people. They involve other people but don’t harm them. Burglary, theft etc, all harm innocent people. That’s the difference in my eyes.

Basically what Quady said. (Post #84)

However I want to dig in to your above point and explore your harm principle. I agree that some of the examples I have do not directly harm people the way that stabbing someone is. But I would say they are not entirely unrelated.

Direct Harm - DH
Indirect Harm- IH

Imagine a family: wife, husband and kids. The wife's father dies from lung cancer (IH) which causes her to be depressed and lashes out at her husband who begins eating more to deal with stress and becomes obese (IH). The Wife becomes unattracted to her husband and starts an affair (IH) and then eventually leaves her family to start a new relationship (IH)

The Husband becomes increasingly depressed and becomes an alcoholic (IH) leading him to lose his job (IH) and have to move his family to somewhere cheaper. All of the above has obviously devastated the children who are unable to do well at school due to tumultuous home life. They are unable to find partly because of this. The father eventually kills himself and to deal with this one of the kids becomes a drug addict (IH). Five years later , completely off his head on various drugs he kills a police officer.

(I believe in free will, personal responsibility and being VERY firm on Law and Order. FYI but things like the above show that criminality doesn't always happen in a vacuum.)

But that has no relevance to the discussion about low level crime requiring tougher sentencing...

Great point, and as soon as I typed my earlier response I knew you’d come back with that. But that has no relevance to the discussion about low level crime requiring tougher sentencing...

Once again, I’m perplexed as to what we’re debating, because I agree. But it also doesn’t change the fact that low level vagrancy is directly harmful, intentionally harmful, and could truly be prevented from repeatedly happening by repeat offenders.

tbh that's not what this discussion is about, it's just what you railroaded the discussion to be about...

Cool, we're in agreement then!

Cool, we're in agreement then!