• Croquette@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If he shaft you for a 100$ on your paycheck or he takes it from from your pocket, it’s still the same thing. You are a 100$ short by malicious intent.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right but, as far as the law is concerned, shorting you $100 is not the same as stealing it from you, because you did not possess it until it was given to you. But that does not mean it isn’t a crime, it’s just considered a different type of crime.

      Stealing from a tin is theft of money in someone else’s possession to which you have no right to.

      You are owed your wages. It would be a crime not to pay what you are owed, to fullfil their binding legal obligation. We call it theft (because it is) but the distinction is that it’s a failure to deliver something in their possession to you.

      And the reason the punishment isn’t the same is because if we start jailing people for failure to pay money they owe someone else, it is going to hurt the poor faaaar worse than the wealthy or the business owners.

      It’s just not a good analogy. The point it’s trying to make is fine but the example is poor.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh in that case I’ll just pocket the $100 a customer gives me for groceries, instead of putting it in the drawer to which it is owed.

        Since we want a consistent rule, the store should be repossessed just like a car, or at least missed wages should have massive late fees.