Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think he/she does really believe that, with some reason. We were just discussing in another thread that corporations think nothing of taking jobs away from American workers and giving them to third world slave laborers, all for the benefit of their shareholders. However, we're talking about individuals here. This guy sold some property and deposited $30K into his account. It's not like he was some rich guy to whom $30K was a pittance.
So it's morally OK to steal from big corporations, but not from an individual non-rich guy?
One time in a mall I found about $120 in twenties in the basket of an ATM machine that said "out of order".
Some people might just take the money for themselves, but I took it inside the bank and gave it to the teller. It's the only right thing to do, in my view.
What rule are you referring to, some myth? Even so, aren't you forgetting about the 1/10th that makes it a criminal offense and besides, it really doesn't matter what you or anyone else who thinks the guy ought ot be let off says, he's been properly convicted. Good for honest people, bad for him and his ilk.
The man who got the money was inconvenienced. The mistake was made by the bank, not by the customer. Why is the customer the one who's getting punished? If you don't want to lose 30k, don't deposit 30k into someone's account, that doesn't seem like a hard thing to accomplish.
So it's morally OK to steal from big corporations, but not from an individual non-rich guy?
One time in a mall I found about $120 in twenties in the basket of an ATM machine that said "out of order".
Some people might just take the money for themselves, but I took it inside the bank and gave it to the teller. It's the only right thing to do, in my view.
No, I never said it's okay, just that I understand the argument that rich people think nothing of stealing from the little guy. I was giving an example of the only post I've seen by that poster and it was about outsourcing. I've mentioned several times that people don't have a right to steal from people because they feel those people have more than them or because they feel like it was the bank's mistake (both arguments I've seen on this thread). I also don't think that the only reason to turn the money over to the bank was to avoid being caught. I've seen that argument as well. If something's not right, it's not right no matter the possibility of being caught.
So it's morally OK to steal from big corporations, but not from an individual non-rich guy?
One time in a mall I found about $120 in twenties in the basket of an ATM machine that said "out of order".
Some people might just take the money for themselves, but I took it inside the bank and gave it to the teller. It's the only right thing to do, in my view.
Big corporations become big corporations by stealing from individual non-rich guys, but when they get caught they just have their friends in congress to alter whatever laws they violated retroactively to make whatever nonsense they were engaged in perfectly acceptable under the law.
Big corporations become big corporations by stealing from individual non-rich guys, but when they get caught they just have their friends in congress to alter whatever laws they violated retroactively to make whatever nonsense they were engaged in perfectly acceptable under the law.
OK. Let's analyze this. Apple is currently the biggest corporation in the world, by stock value, and they also have the most cash. What exactly did they steal, and from whom?
Google's also huge. What did they steal? Do they rip you off, forcing you to use their free services?
How about, I don't know, an old-line corporation like General Mills. Do you feel ripped off when you eat Cheerios?
All this anti-corporation talk is empty, devoid of facts or logic. Sure, some corporate managers are dishonest, just like some individuals working for whoever, and just like some government bureaucrats. Heck, we have even had dishonest Presidents. People are people, some good and some bad.
The man who got the money was inconvenienced. The mistake was made by the bank, not by the customer. Why is the customer the one who's getting punished? If you don't want to lose 30k, don't deposit 30k into someone's account, that doesn't seem like a hard thing to accomplish.
And it wouldnt have been hard for the thief to notify the bank of the incorrect amount, and its also easy NOT to engage in criminal activity. Had he done the right thing, he wouldnt be in the mess he is in now.
Big corporations become big corporations by stealing from individual non-rich guys, but when they get caught they just have their friends in congress to alter whatever laws they violated retroactively to make whatever nonsense they were engaged in perfectly acceptable under the law.
That's a strange view of the world. I always thought that corporate success was achieved by providing goods and services that the market demanded.
It was dishonest to spend the money. Those who are not ethically compromised can see that.
I'm trying to put myself in similar shoes. Living on the borders of poor/middle class, with bills to pay, mortgages, insurance, food, rent etc. If 30k magically ends up in my account, it'll be very difficult to not be tempted to use that 30k for my own uses. I'm not trying to say what the boy did was totally excusable (and I am sure he blew it all on needless possessions)... but I do believe the bank is just as responsible. It's akin to dangling a piece of meat to a hungry lion. Of course he's gonna eat it.
The young mans punishment is too extreme. 10 years probation is far too much. I feel he should be ordered to pay only half of it back. The bank should foot the other half of the bill for their error and for causing this whole problem in the first place.
Call me ethically compromised - but it doesn't sit right that there is only one party at fault here.
I'm trying to put myself in similar shoes. Living on the borders of poor/middle class, with bills to pay, mortgages, insurance, food, rent etc. If 30k magically ends up in my account, it'll be very difficult to not be tempted to use that 30k for my own uses. I'm not trying to say what the boy did was totally excusable (and I am sure he blew it all on needless possessions)... but I do believe the bank is just as responsible. It's akin to dangling a piece of meat to a hungry lion. Of course he's gonna eat it.
The young mans punishment is too extreme. 10 years probation is far too much. I feel he should be ordered to pay only half of it back. The bank should foot the other half of the bill for their error and for causing this whole problem in the first place.
Call me ethically compromised - but it doesn't sit right that there is only one party at fault here.
The part of this discussion that differentiates between something happening by mistake and something being done on purpose is apparently over your head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
