Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If a man,women,or child stole some food because they had no money ... should they be punish for this act? or was this act ok since they had nothing and this was the only way to survive?

According to the laws they should be punished though I feel if a person is starving and it's only food, why should they be....It's only food, not like it was a bank.

Why is this in the Religion forum?

Originally posted by stop_sign
If a man,women,or child stole some food because they had no money ... should they be punish for this act? or was this act ok since they had nothing and this was the only way to survive?

They should not be punished, but they should not be praised. They should be allowed to regain their dignity, and become self-sufficient.

to much Utopia in that, the real world dont work like that

They should not be praised, as it is wrong in what they did, but they should not be punished eithor.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They should not be punished, but they should not be praised.

Originally posted by Makedde
They should not be praised, as it is wrong in what they did, but they should not be punished eithor.

I think its upseting if some 1 is that poor they cant afford food n if they steel i blame no 1 but the goverment for not providing help for these people

Object: Stealing (bad)
Intention: To feed children (neutral)
Circumstance: The children are starving (neutral)
Overall: Bad.

The act is immoral, but under the circumstances and with that intention, the copability of the parents is lessened.

In history, people lost a hand for stealing which is harsh. But today there shouldn't be any reason for people not to have enough food. If I had to, I would.........OHHHHH..I'd probably beg a lot.....lol

The law is the law. However, punishment need not always be harsh; the circumstances and consequences should be regarded compassionately. The response of the law/society should also be to rectify the situation, otherwise it becomes part of the problem.

Originally posted by Mindship
The law is the law. However, punishment need not always be harsh; the circumstances and consequences should be regarded compassionately. The response of the law/society should also be to rectify the situation, otherwise it becomes part of the problem. Older societies in the past had some good ideas for the poor, like letting the poor gleen their fields.

Originally posted by Mindship
The law is the law. However, punishment need not always be harsh; the circumstances and consequences should be regarded compassionately. The response of the law/society should also be to rectify the situation, otherwise it becomes part of the problem.

In other words, the punishment should fit the crime.

Suppose a man accidentally hits a woman with his car and kills her. While he did not intend on harming her, his intentions do not change the fact that she is dead. He must be punished, but his punishment must fit his crime. This is why the United States legal system differentiates between murder I, murder II, and manslaughter.

I understand. Funny though in some places in history, if a person commits a crime against another, the person is OWNED by the family of the one who committed the crime, for so many years. Now to me, that would work quite well.

Originally posted by finti
to much Utopia in that, the real world dont work like that

When I say "no punishment" I do not mean not charged and not found guilty. The punishment should fit the crime, and this crime requires that these people be given a change (one chance). If good people are made to do this, then the system is at fault. However, we need to keep an eye on these people in case they abuse the system.

You mean keep stealing food?

Originally posted by debbiejo
You mean keep stealing food?

Abusing the system = trying to get something for nothing.