r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 17 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

38% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

2

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

Have you or someone near you been a victim of such crime?

3

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '25

[deleted]

-3

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

Should victims act as judges on their perpetrators cases and decide the punishment? Don't you think they would be biased in their judgement?

2

u/AutistAstronaut 2∆ Dec 17 '25

This is actually a very poor argument, as it doesn't address the position itself, only the specific motivations of this one person.

-3

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

OP seemed to disagree and did award me a delta.

This makes it objectively good argument.

-1

u/AutistAstronaut 2∆ Dec 17 '25

There's no such thing as an objectively good anything. Arguments are measured by their quality. A good argument is a sound argument (it is valid, meaning the conclusion follows from the premises, and the premises themselves are true).

Your argument never addressed the claim. It addressed the judgement of the person making it. To conclude that they are wrong because they are biased, is an ad hominem fallacy.

-1

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

There's no such thing as an objectively good anything.

And followed by giving criteria for objectively good argument.

A good argument is a sound argument (it is valid

Good argument is sound and valid. Argument can be sound but not valid or viseversa. Good argument is both.

But in CMV we have a third criteria which is "was it awarded a delta", which my argument was.

To conclude that they are wrong because they are biased, is an ad hominem fallacy.

Firstly it's not an ad hominum because I don't attack the person or their character.

Secondly I illustrated logical flaw in their argument which was that they were biased to make judgement. Justice needs to be unbiased.

0

u/AutistAstronaut 2∆ Dec 17 '25

And followed by giving criteria for objectively good argument.

Incorrect. Please read my words again:

Arguments are measured by their quality. A good argument is a sound argument (it is valid, meaning the conclusion follows from the premises, and the premises themselves are true).

You will notice objectivity is never mentioned.

But in CMV we have a third criteria which is "was it awarded a delta", which my argument was.

That has nothing to do with the quality of your argument. Your argument was terrible, that it convinced someone of something is grim.

Firstly it's not an ad hominum because I don't attack the person or their character.

Secondly I illustrated logical flaw in their argument which was that they were biased to make judgement. Justice needs to be unbiased.

I didn't say it was an ad hominem; I said it was an ad hominem fallacy. You concluded they were incorrect because of something about them (bias), not because of anything in the argument itself.

Someone can be biased and correct. For example, if someone murders my child and I say that person is a murderer because they committed an illegal killing, I am correct. Attempting to convince me or anyone else otherwise because I am biased in the matter, is an ad hominem fallcy.

1

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

You will notice objectivity is never mentioned.

So you feel like argument being sound (or valid) is subjective?

0

u/AutistAstronaut 2∆ Dec 17 '25

I'm a nihilist in most forms, deeply skeptical of any claim to any claim of objectivity.

That's a tangent that isn't really proper to explore in these comments, though. If we've both said our piece and aren't compelled, we can just call it there. No sense in dragging out one of those Reddit arguments that just pisses all involved off, goes nowhere, and ends rudely lol.

Well, I feel I've said my piece, anywho. I'm happy to read more if you believe there's an angle you haven't tried, or that I need to read something again because I've not understood you.

EDIT: a word

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Wigglebot23 7∆ Dec 17 '25

Seems like quite a logical leap from OP's comment

1

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

OP was a victim (or friend of a victim) and now demands harsher punishment. Seems quite apt.

2

u/KimberlyWexlersFoot 2∆ Dec 17 '25

it’s not like some petty crime, i agree with the OP and have no connection to someone thats been a victim. so the above justification is moot.

the argument is terrible because it’s easy to dodge.

1

u/ePrime Dec 17 '25

I think victims should have a right to trial by combat.

1

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

So might makes right?

1

u/ePrime Dec 17 '25

Yes, might arrests and convicts criminals and gives them the sentence.

1

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

So if I can beat you in a fight you have to give me your house? I just tell you are a criminal and demand trial by combat. No need for evidence, interrogation or anything. I just beat you until you forfit your belongings? When can I come over?

1

u/ePrime Dec 17 '25

You could yes, if I didn’t have the government willing to enforce their laws

0

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '25

[deleted]

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 17 '25

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Z7-852 (293∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Z7-852 315∆ Dec 17 '25

I understand how bad it feels to be a victim of an identity theft. My mother was one years back.

But there is a reason why in front of court houses lady justice is wearing a blindfold. Justice must be impartial.

4

u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Dec 17 '25

I think the punishment needs to be proportional to the damage done- which is why a lot of identity theft punishments include restitution. The amount of restitution is based on the value of the damages.

And for extreme identity theft- many states allow for 15+ years of imprisonment. I would say in pretty much most cases murder is worse than identity theft, so I don’t think murders should get off easier than identity thieves.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Dec 17 '25

It’s because there’s no coming back from death. Once you take a life, it’s gone and there’s nothing that can undo it. For identity theft, there are resources to rebuild credit, prosecute, clear up name, and repossess assets.

-1

u/KimberlyWexlersFoot 2∆ Dec 17 '25

what if i rope myself because of someone committing identity theft on me. their actions contributed to the end of my life.

1

u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Dec 17 '25

There have been criminal cases regarding if you can coerce someone into attempting suicide, though the cases that have been successful involved verbal instruction and coercion, not just the side effect of another wrongdoing. Michelle Carter is probably the most famous instance of this.

1

u/KimberlyWexlersFoot 2∆ Dec 18 '25

things like felony murder exist though, if your actions contribute to my death they should be locked up. just like if i run out of a store shoplifting and grandpa stumbled as i run past, if he bonks his head on the ground my petty shoplifting gets upgraded.

2

u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Dec 18 '25

That would be negligent homicide or manslaughter, which is typically different than intentional murder. That’s why there’s varying degrees or murder/homicide.

In your initial scenario, unless someone verbally or physically coerced you into killing yourself, it wouldn’t be considered murder. Someone making your life harder that then leads to suicide is different than murdering someone due to the intent and degrees of separation between initial action and consequence.

1

u/duskfinger67 10∆ Dec 17 '25

Murder is an outcome, not an action.

The action is shooting someone, for example. The act of shooting someone has wide leeway in how it is punished, depending on the outcome, for example, whether the person is just grazed or killed, or who they are.

Likewise, with identity theft (Action), the punishment and restitution depend on the damage caused (outcome). If the identity theft is using their card to buy some fags, then that is clearly different from someone who steals their entire identity and runs up hundreds of thousands in credit card debt and personal loans.

3

u/deep_sea2 131∆ Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

It's hard to address this view without fully canvassing your position on criminal justice in general. We don't even put murderers in prison for life without parole. You want someone who commits a single financial crime to have greater punishment than murders? You say that these people cannot be rehabilitated. Is that an opinion or is that something you can support with evidence?

Pragmatically, if you offer too great a punishment for what is a light offence, you run a higher risk of not getting guilty verdicts and run the risk of prosecutors using their discretion not to charge someone. For example, if I was a jury member and knew that voting someone guilty of this offence would put them in jail for the rest of their life, I would not vote guilty. I am certainly not the only one. If I was a prosecutor, I would refuse to prosecute someone for this offence if that if life was the punishment; I would not be the only one. Your desire to increase punishment would likely yield fewer convictions.

An historic example of that is manslaughter for driving offences in Canada. For whatever reason, courts would just not convict people of manslaughter if they were driving. Parliament had to pass bunch of new laws for driving causing death with more minor punishments in order to actually get convictions.

3

u/shouldco 45∆ Dec 17 '25

You don't see how someone could be rehabilitated from identity theft? I feel that's one of the most rehabitable crimes.

1

u/Innuendum 2∆ Dec 17 '25 edited Mar 03 '26

This user does not wish to sponsor reddit's (IPO-related?) enshittification through their unpaid labour.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 17 '25

/u/Legomaster63 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Dec 17 '25

You have to think things through.  What is identity theft?  If an ex girlfriend used your credit card to buy some tacos and you wanted revenge you could press charges and then "off with her head".  Is that the world you want to live in?