I agree, Taiwan’s legal system allows people to use it as a club to extort money. You even see it in cases where a person is drinking and kills another. Pay the family enough money and even YOU can sail away scot free.
If you’re gonna charge the guy do it, don’t allow people to extort others
And over a measly cheap item. The so called victim is not a victim if she has time to chase this small shit around. 65 cents, gtfo. Seems the cops, court, and the “victim” has a lot of free time to waste.
I agree with the op and also would not have paid and done the community service too.
After all is said and done, he went to court. He lost. He was found guilty. The court actually increased the fine. Maybe they had more information than he shared here.
The court increased the fine? He says the prosecutor started with 5,000 in the OP and in the resolution he said he did service rather than pay 5,000? The fine was not increased.
And, of course, he had the benefit of the shop owner only getting 65 and not succumbing to extortion.
So Mith, just hypothetically, let’s suppose the CCTV footage shows OP placing the disputed item on his person i.e. in his pocket or bag. Medical questions aside, is that enough to satisfy you that it was theft?
Yeah, exactly.
That whole “intent” thing is horse shit.
Please name a country where one can pick something up in a store and stroll out with it and not get in trouble, I’d love to visit.
As far as the OP’s self-diagnosed condition giving him a pass, that’s bullshit too.
If one legitimately suffers from a disorder that precludes them from distinguishing between right and wrong. one is generally confined, to prevent them from wreaking havoc, and treated until such time as their ability to adjust their behaviour is restored.
As far as the nonsense about it being a trifling amount, that’s even stupider.
Are you seriously saying that the merchant should be comfortable allowing their inventory to disappear off the shelves without remuneration??
Sure it’s stealing. But there is also intent
Most people who five finger discount go for a more expensive item. If I was a store owner I could believe that someone momentarily forgot to pay for it.
Technically the two restaurants I walked out of could have called the cops. They chose not to. Both said that they just figured I forgot. They were right, I returned the next day to apologize and pay.
Pocket, generally yes. Bag, it depends on the bag.
There’s always wiggle room, though. I’ve gone in to a store before, thought I didn’t need a bag, and then had too much stuff and put some in my pocket. You’d really have to see it (or get detailed third party accounts) to reliably predict intent.
My main points really are:
The extortionate behavior of the shop owner is reprehensible, regardless of the truth of the underlying claim.
The prosecution was a waste of governmental resources.
Your claim that the condition was self diagnosed is pure speculation.
Nonetheless, it does seem logical that a condition not severe enough to prevent a person from getting an education, walking around freely, making his own decisions, working a typical job for wages and so on is not so severe that it should prevent criminal responsibility.
That’s the line of thinking they’ve been increasingly using in Canada since the Jordan case, i.e. (in some provinces more than others) if the prosecutor deems a case too small, it gets swept under the rug, because they don’t have the resources to prosecute every case within the five year limit. (I’m not a fan of this policy.)
Don’t take people’s shit. That’s on you. Put stuff in a store in your pocket? On you. Walk out the front door with stuff in your hand because you forgot? On you. I’d rather live in a place where this kind of stuff isn’t just brushed away, and where I have some reasonable hope for compensation against people doing it without going to court.
Well put.
Savour the exquisite irony of people taking a well-deserved break from wailing and moaning about how the Rule of Law doesn’t exist here, or at least remains largely un-enforced, in order to kvetch and criticize when it is enforced.
