Anglų kalba 9prat.

Namų darbas:
9 prat. 92 psl. vadovėlyje. … answers …
1. Is crime against a person always worse than property crime?
Yes, a crime against a person is always considered more punitive than a property crime. Property crimes’ monetary losses
are almost always retributed to the victim by insurance claims, the offender, and in some instances by the solicitor general of the
court where the crime took place.
Crimes against a person on the other hand include crimes than can never be retributed because of mental anguish or
death.
2. Is it OK to steal if you really need the money (for example, to buy medicine for your child)?
Answer1
Of course, it is.
Theft is theft, whether it’s emptying a bank vault or swiping an accessory at a shop, but there are situations in which one
may find it necessary to steal.
But of course, in my opinion, you should probably try to exhaust all other options before you resort to stealing. If you
really need an item and you don’t have the money, try asking the store cashier/clerk first, and if they take their $8 an hour job
seriously enough that they refuse to budge, maybe try asking some customers or patrons for help, there is a chance that some
kind Samaritan will pay it forward.
Answer2
Stealing is rarely “necessary”; that being said, what would I personally do if my children were hungry? I’d do what was
needed to feed my family. I hope I’d never have to break the law to do so, though.
Answer3
No.
It shouldn’t be okay that people are starving in the first place and it shouldn’t be okay that people with a lot of money are
too greedy to help out those who are starving.
There is enough money in the world that no one should be starving and have no shelter over their head, but this is the
reality of the world we live in.
There are places that people can donate to whose sole purpose is to feed and shelter the homeless.
Of course, stealing due to starving is definitely a mitigating factor in a court of law, and they may be let off the first couple
of times, but consistent stealing will not be forgiven.
While the initial idea of a person stealing is no big deal in the light of the situation, if every starving person began to steal,
other less wealthy people (who are barely making it by themselves) will begin to starve.
The issue has far more reaching consequences than what scratches the surface, and these need to be taken into account.
While certain responsibilities are placed on each person to do their portion in society (like get a job), there is also a lot of
responsibility on society to make or allow this to happen.
What I am saying is that the issue of a starving person stealing isn’t the core issue but a consequence of other more
important issues that need to be addressed.
Answer4
Ok, so if we change the question a bit to: Is it OK to steal if you really need the money (for example, stealing food)?
Well… I believe that if you are truly starving, then just follow your instincts. If that means stealing, then just do it. I find it obscene
that in the developed First World countries, we have supermarkets everywhere, jam packed with produce, much of which is
thrown out every day because it is on the cusp of its use by date, and people are going hungry.
For me it is more criminal that a society can have people going hungry, and can still get all moralistic when the hungry and
broke person steals some food, than it is for the hungry person to steal.
I know that lots of people would say “Why doesn't the bum get a job blah blah blah …” but things aren't always that
simple.
Ultimately, we homo sapiens are just another species of animal. That being so, how many of us condemn urban foxes for
stealing leftovers from trash cans, or bears doing the same thing; fact is only someone with a right-wing Republican mentality
would be condemnatory of such an animal’s behavior. Most other people wouldn't see it as wrong as they would understand that
the fox was hungry. It should be the same with a person who steals because they are starving.