Are we too strict in applying and adhering to rules?

Eliot Rosewater · 20-03-2011 08:14PM #1

Last Friday I saw four unopened bundles of newspapers by one of the entrances to my college building. When I entered the building I noticed that the shop was closed, and figured that the newspaper distributors had delivered the newspapers without realising this. So the newspapers weren't going to be used.

I like reading the newspaper, so I thought I'd take one. But I was nervous. This was 10am. I toyed with the idea all day, then at about half one I plucked up the courage, went out, opened the bundle, and took a copy of the Irish Times. The world hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, collapsed since.

It got me thinking. Those newspapers were most definitely destined for the bin. The shop wasn't going to open, no one who owned them was going to take them, and they were going to lie around until one of the janitors threw them away. So there was no logical reason why I couldn't take one, or why anyone (bar other shopkeepers) might take issue with it.

The problem seems to me that we apply rules too strictly. If one of the security guards came out he might have given out to me for stealing. Why? Because I was breaking the rules - even though the rule, in this case, was clearly redundant. But in my experience security guards, teachers and other figures of authority still insist on applying rules when the context demands they be ignored.

Do you agree?

Denerick · 20-03-2011 09:22PM

Thief!

I've done the same myself before. Only I used to steal The Economist (An even more middle class thief than you).

This is the way I look at it. If someone working in a restaurant steals some frozen chips that are about to be thrown out because they are short dated, then I have no problem with that. More power to them. The fact is though this will likely lead to a habit. Soon the fellow will become a compulsive thief. Sometimes the rule is at its most important when its absurd - puts an end to the slippery slope right at the top.

If you legitimise theft in any way, soon enough you'll begin rationalising it when its less grey.

I speak as someone with grave moral elasticity, just making the point.

krd · 21-03-2011 08:50AM

Denerick wrote: »

This is the way I look at it. If someone working in a restaurant steals some frozen chips that are about to be thrown out because they are short dated, then I have no problem with that. More power to them. The fact is though this will likely lead to a habit. Soon the fellow will become a compulsive thief. Sometimes the rule is at its most important when its absurd - puts an end to the slippery slope right at the top.

Some restaurants let their staff take food home that is about to spoil. Some don't - and they bin it, without allowing the staff to take it. Invariably, in the restaurants where they bin the food, they're run by a petty mean spirited bollox who feels cheated if anyone else enjoys a windfall. Cruelty gives some people great pleasure. They enjoy the looks on faces of the minimum wage staff as perfectly good food is thrown away.

The same can be said for that court case in England. Where they're prosecuting a girl for taking food from Tesco's bins.

Sometimes the rule is at its most important when its absurd - puts an end to the slippery slope right at the top.

Important for bolloxes.

krd · 21-03-2011 08:59AM

Eliot Rosewater, you, unfortunately, have committed a crime that is not victimless.

Newsagents, receive bundles of newspapers from the distributor. Everyday a portion of these newspapers ends up in the bin.

Just before the shop closes for the night, the shop keeper removes the mast heads of the unsold papers and returns these masthead to the distributor. The shopkeeper is then just charged for the papers they have sold.

By you taking the paper without paying, the shop still has to pay.

You have stolen from the shop.

Eliot, if you do not wish to be plagued by guilt all your life, if I were you, I'd find some way to make amends. You'll never pass a lie detector test when they'll ask you have you ever committed a crime of moral turpitude.

Then again this may just be the path your life is headed down. Welcome to the underworld.

Eliot Rosewater · 21-03-2011 10:49AM

krd wrote: »

By you taking the paper without paying, the shop still has to pay.

Yes, but if I hadn't taken it the shop still would have had to pay for the newspapers. There was no one from the shop around, and the caretakers would have just binned them. (The shop is run by an external company.) There were papers there from Thursday too which hadn't been touched because the shop managers weren't there to take the mast heads either.

Permabear · 21-03-2011 11:54AM

This post has been deleted.

looksee · 21-03-2011 12:04PM

The printers were not going to print less newspapers because the shop was closed.

It would have caused more hassle to change the delivery route than to just leave it be. And anyway the printers would have been left with a couple of bundles of papers that someone would have to make the decision to dump.

The shop either cancelled the papers, or it did not, maybe they were at a loss, or maybe not.

None of the above matters, whoever the papers belonged to, they did not belong to you. And remember you will be on CCTV! I think you should organise a lawyer now, or leave the country....

seamus · 21-03-2011 12:06PM

I think the main problem is one that boards has seen when applying rules.

Ideally, the spirit of the law should be all that's important, the letter of the law is not. Unfortunately since the law must treat everyone equally, how do you apply a fuzzy concept like the spirit of the law?

Since the definition of stealing legally is (something like) the intent to deprive another entity (be it a person or company) of their property, it stands to reason that there must be some value upon that property, for the entity who has lost it. In this case the spirit of the law says that theft from a bin is not theft at all since you are not depriving anyone of anything.
But then you have a problem in that someone else gets convicted of stealing something which is of marginally more (but barely any) value to its owner - say the theft of an old bucket from someone's garden, which hasn't been used in ten years and has a hole in it.

How do you rationalise that one person has stolen, but someone else hasn't? How do you draw a line when you're apply a fuzzy notion of spirit instead of a solid notion like the letter?

In reality we all operate mentally on the notion that the spirit is important - hence why we drive above the speed limit when we deem it safe (because the spirit of the speed limit law is safety, the actual limit is irrelevant. This is also why conflict comes in and people feel hard done by when they're caught; they don't feel they've done anything wrong because they stuck to the spirit of the law.

Eliot's example is actually very good for this. In the spirit of the law, he didn't see any problem; the papers were going to waste, so no-one was being deprived of anything. In reality, since unsold papers return to the printer for refunding, there is a material loss there, so applying the spirit of the law on a personal level doesn't take into account that an individual may not possess the full facts on which to apply that law. Instead if they stick to the letter of the law, they cannot fall foul of it.

Eliot Rosewater · 21-03-2011 12:36PM

seamus wrote: »

Eliot's example is actually very good for this. In the spirit of the law, he didn't see any problem; the papers were going to waste, so no-one was being deprived of anything. In reality, since unsold papers return to the printer for refunding, there is a material loss there, so applying the spirit of the law on a personal level doesn't take into account that an individual may not possess the full facts on which to apply that law. Instead if they stick to the letter of the law, they cannot fall foul of it.

That's a very good post. Just to reiterate though, there were no members of the company operating the shop around that day, and they weren't going to be around until the following Monday, so I figured that they wouldn't be able to get a refund on Thursday's and Friday's newpapers.

However, if I'm wrong I accept that. I believed at the time that there would be no material damage done to any person or company by taking a newspaper.

One could now ask whether that is suitable justification.

Permabear · 21-03-2011 12:43PM

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 21-03-2011 12:46PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I figured

And therein lies the conflict.

Neither you nor I know if there was any material loss here. Maybe the shop lost money on the stack anyway, maybe they didn't.

One could now ask whether that is suitable justification.

It's probably a defence to some degree. Mitigating at the very least. Obviously there is a certain amount of responsibility on your part as you were not in full possession of the facts, so you acted without full consideration of what you were doing.
But you did act in good faith - and one could reasonably argue that if the shop had been open or if you'd been challenged, you were prepared to pay full price. So therefore no intent to deprive. But that's "what ifs" and "would haves" which are close to worthless in court because anybody can claim what they would have done.

I'd say that when something has been thrown in a bin, the former owner has deliberately relinquished his ownership rights over it. By placing it in a bin, he was effectively saying, "I don't want this possession anymore. I don't care what happens to it from this point forward. I just want rid of it." Whether it ends up as landfill, or winds up in the possession of someone else, is immaterial to him.

What if it was put there by accident?

Although the bin is due to be picked up and items disposed of, until that happens there is still scope for the property owner to reclaim their property and undo their mistake. Obviously not saying that this is a valid prosecution argument - even if it was a mistake, if food has been in a bin it can't be reclaimed. But if the property has been accidentally placed into the bin, then the owner is deprived of that property if someone else subsquently takes it. The waste disposal company are covered because they have a contract/agreement to destroy everything in the bin, mistake or not.

I'm just trying to illustrate here that it's very rarely so black-and-white.

Eliot Rosewater · 21-03-2011 12:46PM

Funny you mention rubbish: I also took a copy of the Irish Times out of a recycling bin last Tuesday. Newspaper companies are making nothing out of me!

Permabear · 21-03-2011 01:04PM

This post has been deleted.

HivemindXX · 21-03-2011 01:15PM

Not that I think there's anything deeply wrong with the actions as outlined but...

I guess the "thin end of the wedge" argument could be used. It's common for bakeries to throw out fresh cakes at the end of the day. Does this make it ok for me to shoplift a cake at midday reasoning that it was just going to be thrown out anyway.

With regards to the example of restaurants giving wasted food to staff and the mean spirits of those owners that don't allow this I have a story. There was a person who worked for a pizza place who had the policy of letting the staff have wasted food. This person would often get a third party to make a large order just before closing time and then phone up 15 minutes later and cancel the order. They'd get the free pizza ... and this is the reason we can't have nice things.

Earthhorse · 21-03-2011 01:25PM

You opened the bundle of unopened newspapers which I assume was addressed to the shop and which you knew was intended for them; I would think that, technically, the greater offence you are guilty of, on top of stealing, is interfering with the mail, a pretty serious offence and rightly so.

Are we sometimes too strict in applying the letter of the law? No doubt. But I wouldn't agree that the Irish are good examples of this. If anything, we often have too lax an attitude to the law and to rules and regulations in general. American society would be a better example where applying the letter of the law has probably gone too far.

krd · 21-03-2011 01:27PM

Salvaging something that has been discarded is not theft.

There's a silliness I've noticed in Dublin. Lots of shops have started putting locks on their bins. An it's not for insurance purposes.

A few of the Tescos go to extreme lengths to make sure no one can steal their rubbish.

Earthhorse · 21-03-2011 01:35PM

Would have thought that's to do with privacy issues etc. A lot of information can be gathered from dumpster diving.

seamus · 21-03-2011 01:35PM

krd wrote: »

There's a silliness I've noticed in Dublin. Lots of shops have started putting locks on their bins. An it's not for insurance purposes.

A few of the Tescos go to extreme lengths to make sure no one can steal their rubbish.

There could be an aesthetic/security issue there. Having hi-ace vans pull up throughout the day (or at the end of the day) to rummage through your bins is undesirable and there's an increased risk of follow-on crime from such people hanging around. Superquinn gets around these problem by having a compactor out the back which is switched on whenever need.

looksee · 21-03-2011 01:36PM

Someone takes an item of food out of a Tesco bin, someone else has already thrown something like maybe raw chicken into the bin that has contaminated the food.

First person gets sick and sues Tesco.

Tesco have to go to a lot of expense and aggravation to prove that the food was removed from a waste bin, and 'no, milud, we didn't lock the bins as we didn't think anyone would take food from the bins and eat it'. 'Yes, milud, we will idiot-proof the bins to save people from themselves'.

krd · 21-03-2011 01:46PM

looksee wrote: »

Someone takes an item of food out of a Tesco bin, someone else has already thrown something like maybe raw chicken into the bin that has contaminated the food.

First person gets sick and sues Tesco.

Tesco have to go to a lot of expense and aggravation to prove that the food was removed from a waste bin, and 'no, milud, we didn't lock the bins as we didn't think anyone would take food from the bins and eat it'. 'Yes, milud, we will idiot-proof the bins to save people from themselves'.

Right, you think any judge will make an award to someone for getting sick after eating out of someone else's bin?

Should we all put locks on our household bins? - just to be on the safe side.

It's just the ultimate in mean fistedness.

There are people who wouldn't let you have the steam off their piss.

Dumpster diving is common in other countries.

I have know people who've worked in restaurants where the pissy little manager has thrown food in bin - and refused to let staff have it. It's a special kind of meanness.

Earthhorse · 21-03-2011 01:51PM

I'm pretty sure there are Health & Safety regulations surrounding how restaurants and foodstores dispose of their food. I don't know if locking their bins is covered but I'd be pretty sure ensuring the food doesn't get out of the bins and into people's hands, is.

krd · 21-03-2011 01:53PM

seamus wrote: »

There could be an aesthetic/security issue there. Having hi-ace vans pull up throughout the day (or at the end of the day) to rummage through your bins is undesirable and there's an increased risk of follow-on crime from such people hanging around. Superquinn gets around these problem by having a compactor out the back which is switched on whenever need.

You're talking about Travellers - aren't you?

I've got a news flash for you - Travellers go to the supermarket anyway - they're not just attracted by the bins.

seamus · 21-03-2011 01:56PM

krd wrote: »

You're talking about Travellers - aren't you?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of dumpster divers outside of that community.

krd · 21-03-2011 01:58PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are Health & Safety regulations surrounding how restaurants and foodstores dispose of their food. I don't know if locking their bins is covered but I'd be pretty sure ensuring the food doesn't get out of the bins and into people's hands, is.

Once it's binned, it's no longer their responsibility.

If someone chooses to eat out of a bin, that's their funeral.

HivemindXX · 21-03-2011 03:12PM

krd wrote: »

Once it's binned, it's no longer their responsibility.

If someone chooses to eat out of a bin, that's their funeral.

I doubt you are a lawyer. Chances are these bins are still on their property which would certainly allow the argument that the contents are still their responsibility.

Does the supermarket think it's possible someone might eat out of the bins? If they have ever had to chase off dumpster divers then they have to answer yes.

Since they know people will eat out of the bins did they take any measures to stop this or ensure the rubbish was not contaminated? I doubt "No, it's their funeral" would be an acceptable answer. "Yes, we put a lock on it" would be much better.

Eliot Rosewater · 21-03-2011 05:27PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

You opened the bundle of unopened newspapers which I assume was addressed to the shop and which you knew was intended for them; I would think that, technically, the greater offence you are guilty of, on top of stealing, is interfering with the mail, a pretty serious offence and rightly so.

Newspapers don't go through "the mail". A newspaper van drives around in the morning and drops the unaddressed see-through packages near the shop. The argument that someone did lose out by my taking the newspaper is very tenable; but claiming I interfered with the mail is just stretching it.

CiaranC · 21-03-2011 06:04PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Are we too strict in applying and adhering to rules?

Who is "we" exactly? "The rules" of society appear to be geared towards a majority body of people in the "middle" of our society, of which Boards seems pretty representative. It seems these people are conditioned to following the rules and seldom question if or why they should.

On the other hand, there are bodies of people at either ends of this spectrum, the so-called "habitual criminal classes" and "white collar criminals", for whom the rules are just something to be ignored.

Which is why we can have people going to jail for non payment of fines of a couple of hundred euros at the same time as having people who swindled millions from the state walking around scot-free. We have college kids being hauled before the courts for possession of small amounts of cannabis at the same time as large scale drug selling operations right out in the open on Dublins boardwalks. A gigantic operation for catching people going 10kmh over the speed limit on dual carriageways on the way to work at the same time as having people with 80+ driving convictions driving around the place, not a bother on them.

The truth is that the whole system relies on the overwhelming majority buying into the notion that they must follow the rules for whatever reason, be-it some kind of "morality" that applies specifically to them, or fear.

The truth of the matter is that the rules are in fact just a thin veneer, a charade. You can get away with pretty much anything you want if you are just intelligent enough about it not to get caught, which really is not difficult. And even if you do get caught by our incredibly efficient state system, the consequences are small enough to be irrelevant. Its when enough people actually come to realise this that society inevitably starts to break down.

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. - Heinlein

raah! · 21-03-2011 07:02PM

If Crime and Punishment and Denerick's post have taught us anything is that we need not stop at "it's not actually hurting anybody" to justify our various thefts/law breakings.

It is very easy, once we start rationalising down the slope, to add qualifiers to statements like "I don't want to harm anyone". It can be quickly transmuted to "I don't want to harm anyone I like" or "I don't want to harm anyone who doesn't deserve it". And both of these would fit perfectly well with our biological predisposition.

Someone can set themselves up as a principled deontolgist, and say "I've never stolen, on principle". But how do we know they are not just a coward? How do we know they are not just a coward? We don't, and it wouldn't be the most solid inference for them to impute their moral superiority to something which we would have done whether or not we possessed any sense of right or wrong at all. (In this I agree with Ciaran C, but do think that there is also a degree of inatness in people's moral behaviour, aside from being imposed on them by society)

So, my opinion is that the only way to apply or adhere to any rules is to do so strictly, unwaveringly and unreasonably. Otherwise, one might realise that one's duty does not always coincide so easily with one's wishes.

And while we are telling stories about how badass we are. I recently (yesterday, in fact, and this was the first time I stole anything in a number of years) stole some fancy youghurts from tesco, after having deliberately set out to do so to prove to myself that I was not a coward, but infact, a man of the highest principles.

Hohohohoho, what a paradox!

raah! · 21-03-2011 07:12PM

CiaranC wrote: »

Its when enough people actually come to realise this that society inevitably starts to break down.

I think people would also realise that it is in their own individual interests that everyone else does not act in the same manner as they do. But there is certainly room for a small minority to run about breaking the rules forever. This small minority should not however, say things like "everyone should break the rules".

That minority in which people can do as they please without their profligacy creating a world in which they actually have less of a good time is , however, more than big enough to fit everybody who posts in this thread :P

Denerick · 21-03-2011 07:59PM

krd wrote: »

Salvaging something that has been discarded is not theft.

There's a silliness I've noticed in Dublin. Lots of shops have started putting locks on their bins. An it's not for insurance purposes.

A few of the Tescos go to extreme lengths to make sure no one can steal their rubbish.

I work in a supermarket. The reason they do this is because a homeless guy took a half eaten pizza out of a bin a couple of years ago, got really sick, and sued the supermarket. Ever since then all bins have to be padlocked. I kid you not.

Earthhorse · 22-03-2011 09:27AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Newspapers don't go through "the mail". A newspaper van drives around in the morning and drops the unaddressed see-through packages near the shop. The argument that someone did lose out by my taking the newspaper is very tenable; but claiming I interfered with the mail is just stretching it.

I'm not sure the fact that it was a private delivery matters in the eyes of the law. The fact that it was unaddressed might though. In my time working at Centra I remember the bundles would come with an address wedged between the plastic binding and the plastic wrapping.

Are we too strict in applying and adhering to rules?

Comments