Legalized Pickpocketing

James Kuyper wrote:

> Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> model. This requires that pick-pocketing become not merely a commonplace
> activity, but also a popular one. That is, there was not only a large
> fraction of the populace that were victims, but also a large fraction of
> the populace who were perpetrators, say at least 25%.

More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
essentially a victimless crime. To decriminalize a crime that one
person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity. Kind of hard to see
that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
(which are discussed in the thread).

--
Erik Max Francis && max RemoveThis @alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
It is impossible to love and be wise.
-- Francis Bacon
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Dec 26, 1:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <m....RemoveThis@alcyone.com> wrote:

> More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
> essentially a victimless crime.  To decriminalize a crime that one
> person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
> effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity.

Or at least find it only minimally annoying. Some forms of spam and
phone solicitation aren't illegal, but I consider myself a victim and
haven't consented or welcomed it.

>  Kind of hard to see
> that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
> become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
> (which are discussed in the thread).

Assume the "standard" protection from pick-pockets is to carry an
minimal amount of cash and that the pickpocket mails you back your ID
and credit cards (the second at least is true in the story, with
wallets coming standard with a place for the stamp built in).

Assume mail delivery of returned ID is effectively instant. (They have
teleportation.)

Assume most people carry cash only for tips and the equivelent of
vending machines, say no more than $5 in today's money. And that
carrying more is widely assumed to be more or less proof that you're
engaged in an illegal activity since honest people don't need much
cash (waiters and the like convert any cash tips to deposits at their
place of buiseness).

Then assume that pick-pocketting is widely viewed as a game of skill.

I can see decriminalization. Although there might be rather severe
penalties for "cheating" by not mailing the wallet BACK in a
reasonable period of time. The big problem with decriminalization in
such an enviroment is that it leaves a question what I'm supposed to
do if I catch someone ATTEMPTING to pick my pocket, if it's a game of
skill there should be some penalty for loosing after all. But I could
solve that if I really cared (a modest and set civil judgement which
can be collected at the time and place of the alleged attempted pick-
pocketting by mutual consent say).

Personally I think it far more likely even given the above that
pickpocketting remains criminal but the laws are rarely actually
enforced. Sort of like our laws against some forms of SPAM or
telephone solicitation today, you have to get REALLY annoying before
anyone enforces the law.

DougL
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:51:21 GMT, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote:


>
>Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
>you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
>up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
>model.

It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
whistling in public or whatever.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

DougL wrote:

> On Dec 26, 1:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <m....DeleteThis@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
>> essentially a victimless crime. To decriminalize a crime that one
>> person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
>> effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity.
>
> Or at least find it only minimally annoying. Some forms of spam and
> phone solicitation aren't illegal, but I consider myself a victim and
> haven't consented or welcomed it.

That seems to be a counterexample of what you're talking about below;
getting a spam email or a phone call you can ignore when you see the
Caller ID (especially in today's Do Not Call age, at least in the United
States) is far less intrusive than having your wallet stolen.

>> Kind of hard to see
>> that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
>> become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
>> (which are discussed in the thread).
>
> Assume the "standard" protection from pick-pockets is to carry an
> minimal amount of cash and that the pickpocket mails you back your ID
> and credit cards (the second at least is true in the story, with
> wallets coming standard with a place for the stamp built in).

If pickpocketing were really to become that widespread, then the
protection would be to put your wallets into buttoned or Velcroed
pockets, purses, and so on. If it were _really_ that bad, then a market
would arise for it. Then pickpocketing would become quite difficult --
the reason pickpockets can get away with it now is because it's still
relatively, in the large scheme of things, uncommon. Postulate the
society that Niven's talking about where on _any given walk_ your
chances of being pickpocketed are so high that you will be castigated
for not taking precautions, and then it's just silly that it's being
tolerated or that the precautions above haven't become so universal that
the practice hasn't been reduced back to low levels, even given the
silly hypothetical that large percentages of people _like_
pickpocketing. (As if decriminalization wouldn't have something to do
with that ...)

> Assume most people carry cash only for tips and the equivelent of
> vending machines, say no more than $5 in today's money. And that
> carrying more is widely assumed to be more or less proof that you're
> engaged in an illegal activity since honest people don't need much
> cash (waiters and the like convert any cash tips to deposits at their
> place of buiseness).

In a progressively cashless society, the real injury to having your
wallet stolen isn't losing the money it contains, because you can always
get more (everyone carries in their wallet an amount that they're
ultimately willing to lose, should the worst case happen).

> I can see decriminalization. Although there might be rather severe
> penalties for "cheating" by not mailing the wallet BACK in a
> reasonable period of time. The big problem with decriminalization in
> such an enviroment is that it leaves a question what I'm supposed to
> do if I catch someone ATTEMPTING to pick my pocket, if it's a game of
> skill there should be some penalty for loosing after all. But I could
> solve that if I really cared (a modest and set civil judgement which
> can be collected at the time and place of the alleged attempted pick-
> pocketting by mutual consent say).

But that's inconsistent with the premise in the Niven stories, which is
that it was completely unenforceable. If someone steals your wallet and
won't give it back, then there's nothing you can do about it. If that
becomes enough of a problem, then you have to start taking steps to
enforce it. Which is probably what you should have been doing in the
first place, since it actually is a crime with a victim, rather than
other victimless crimes which might imply a decriminalization solution,
whether or not everyone thinks that's a good idea.

I still find it pretty implausible.

--
Erik Max Francis && max.DeleteThis@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I sleep and dream that life is / All beauty
-- Lamya
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Dec 26, 4:47 pm, David Johnston <da... DeleteThis @block.net> wrote:
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying.  Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.  

The only plausible answer I see is that some high-profile case went to
a world-wide Supreme Court, and somehow pickpocketing laws were ruled
unenforceable. I asmit that I see know real mechanism for that,
either, but it at least avoids the pitfalls of expecting elected
officials to vote in favor of pickpocketing.
Actually, now that I think about it, an enforced sunsetter rule,
whereby laws need to be re-enacted periodically, could end with
pickpocketing falling off the books if it had degenerated to a minor
nuisance. Such a sunsetter rule has been advocated in the US at
times.

Lee
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

DougL wrote:
....
> enforced. Sort of like our laws against some forms of SPAM or
> telephone solicitation today, you have to get REALLY annoying before
> anyone enforces the law.

The do-not-call registry <www.donotcall.gov> has been extremely
effective at reducing unwanted telephone solicitation in the US. There
are loopholes deliberately written into the law for charitable
solicitations, solicitations for political campaigns, and for companies
that you already have an established relationship with (like the
companies that give you utility services). However, the exceptions are a
problem only because they are exceptions. For those of us registered
with the service, unwanted solicitations that would actually be covered
by the law are practically non-existent.

Spam is a different matter. The simplest way to determine where it came
from is trivial to fake. The more sophisticated ways of tracing it
usually turn up some fool who forgot to install adequate security on his
computer, which has been taken over by a program sending out spam. Spam
is almost never sent directly by the spammer, and that's what makes
anti-spam laws hard to enforce.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

David Johnston <david.RemoveThis@block.net> writes:

> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the
> law would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws
> about not whistling in public or whatever.

If pickpocketing isn't illegal, victims have to grounds to defend
themselves.

If have no qualms about he police saying "Sorry, catching they guy who
picked your pocket is unlikely and we tell you flatly that we won't
spend any time on it before we haven't saved this murder, that rape
and stopped those white slavers."

I object, however, to not being allowed to stab, shoot, hit or
otherwise incapacitate someone who tries to steal from me.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

DougL wrote:

> On Dec 26, 1:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <m....TakeThisOut@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
> > More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
> > essentially a victimless crime. To decriminalize a crime that one
> > person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
> > effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity.
>
> Or at least find it only minimally annoying. Some forms of spam and
> phone solicitation aren't illegal, but I consider myself a victim and
> haven't consented or welcomed it.
>
> > Kind of hard to see
> > that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
> > become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
> > (which are discussed in the thread).
>
> Assume the "standard" protection from pick-pockets is to carry an
> minimal amount of cash and that the pickpocket mails you back your ID
> and credit cards (the second at least is true in the story, with
> wallets coming standard with a place for the stamp built in).
>
> Assume mail delivery of returned ID is effectively instant. (They have
> teleportation.)
>
> Assume most people carry cash only for tips and the equivelent of
> vending machines, say no more than $5 in today's money. And that
> carrying more is widely assumed to be more or less proof that you're
> engaged in an illegal activity since honest people don't need much
> cash (waiters and the like convert any cash tips to deposits at their
> place of buiseness).
>
> Then assume that pick-pocketting is widely viewed as a game of skill.
>
> I can see decriminalization. Although there might be rather severe
> penalties for "cheating" by not mailing the wallet BACK in a
> reasonable period of time. The big problem with decriminalization in
> such an enviroment is that it leaves a question what I'm supposed to
> do if I catch someone ATTEMPTING to pick my pocket, if it's a game of
> skill there should be some penalty for loosing after all. But I could
> solve that if I really cared (a modest and set civil judgement which
> can be collected at the time and place of the alleged attempted pick-
> pocketting by mutual consent say).

I would get a wallet that could be chained to my pants.

Then the perps would need Sinclair molecue wire to cut the chain!
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

David Johnston wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:51:21 GMT, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper.DeleteThis@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> >model.
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.

But on page 89 of paperback "World Of Ptavvs", One Dale Synder says to an
ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner "Let's suppose that the, uh, Sea Statue
civilization had a law against picking pockets. Most countries, you know,
had such laws before we got so crowded that the cops couldn't enforce
them". In "Flatlander", a pickpocketer told Beowulf Shaffer in
"Flatlander" that there were no laws against pickpocketing. I therefore
got the impression that all laws banning pickpocketing had been repealed
and physically erased from the law books and legal codes!
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

In article <3si5n35eig1kmcpjck72f4usgglmi9ls9e.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
David Johnston <david.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:

> James Kuyper wrote:
>
> >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> >model.
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.

That day was here in Philadelphia in 1989. I had my pocket picked as I
was boarding a trolley (there was a crush of people trying to get on). I
had just cashed my paycheck and had more than $500 in my wallet. I
called the Philly cops, and the officer who responded informed me that
since I did not actually _see_ anybody take my wallet, the incident
would be listed as "lost property." No action beyond filing the report
would be taken.

--
D.F. Manno | dfmanno.TakeThisOut@mail.com
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. (William Pitt the
Younger, 1783)
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

"D.F. Manno" wrote:

> In article <3si5n35eig1kmcpjck72f4usgglmi9ls9e DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <david DeleteThis @block.net> wrote:
>
> > James Kuyper wrote:
> >
> > >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> > >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> > >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> > >model.
> >
> > It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> > unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> > would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> > whistling in public or whatever.
>
> That day was here in Philadelphia in 1989. I had my pocket picked as I
> was boarding a trolley (there was a crush of people trying to get on). I
> had just cashed my paycheck and had more than $500 in my wallet. I
> called the Philly cops, and the officer who responded informed me that
> since I did not actually _see_ anybody take my wallet, the incident
> would be listed as "lost property." No action beyond filing the report
> would be taken.

I don't buy the 1989 incident leading to the actual repeal of laws against
pickpocketing! I suggest putting location beacons in the fabric of wallets.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

"D.F. Manno" wrote:

> In article <3si5n35eig1kmcpjck72f4usgglmi9ls9e.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <david.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:
>
> > James Kuyper wrote:
> >
> > >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> > >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> > >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> > >model.
> >
> > It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> > unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> > would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> > whistling in public or whatever.
>
> That day was here in Philadelphia in 1989. I had my pocket picked as I
> was boarding a trolley (there was a crush of people trying to get on). I
> had just cashed my paycheck and had more than $500 in my wallet. I
> called the Philly cops, and the officer who responded informed me that
> since I did not actually _see_ anybody take my wallet, the incident
> would be listed as "lost property." No action beyond filing the report
> would be taken.

Would you go for legalizing pickpocketing if you were assured of getting your
wallet back with your credit cards and ID cards?
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

David Johnston wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:51:21 GMT, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper RemoveThis @verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> >model.
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.

Great moment in "Flatlander": Beowulf Shaffer making love to Sharrol Janss
while holding her purse in his mouth!
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing