A Curious Case of Theft

Discombobulations And Sub-Texts


A huge debate has broken out in South Auckland.  A woman has habitually left her house unlocked as a matter of principle.  She claims that she determined years ago she would never be dictated to by the career criminals, gangs, drug dependant and other social detritus in her neighbourhood.  Her parents never had to lock their houses and protect their possessions so why should she, was her argument.  Apparently it was a kind of "human rights" thing she was running.

Predictably last week, whilst absent, her house was completely ransacked.  Everything the thieves regarded as valuable (computer, wide-screen TV, stereo system, kitchen appliances) was taken.  Her teenage son's car, left unlocked in the driveway, was also taken.  The rest of the house was trashed in what appears to be a malicious melee of wanton destruction. 

The police are investigating and reportedly have some good leads.  The detective in charge of the case sympathized with the victim and her family, but said it reinforced how people needed to take reasonable precautions with their property.
  The rules were pretty simple: adequate professionally installed dead-locks, activated burglar alarms, automatic sensor lighting, and vigilant neighbours.  The detective claimed that these things are shown over and over to prevent neighbourhood and residential theft. 

When questioned the neighbours showed little sympathy for the victim.  She had apparently made her "open house" policy a matter of principle and refused to participate in the neighbourhood watch scheme, arguing that she would not be dictated to by criminals and what she called "human-refuse".

But the attitude of the neighbours has caused a huge outcry in the community.  Anti-crime advocates have demonstrated outside the neighbours' houses.   "Those neighbours are justifying theft," said one outraged protester. "This poor woman is a victim and they are trying to blame her."  But real venom was reserved for the detective.  People think it is completely outrageous that the police are effectively justifying thieves and giving them a free pass.  "The next thing you know", said one, "the thieves will be arguing in court that the woman deserved to be 'done-over' and it will be the police which have encouraged them in that view."

But this outrage is nothing compared to the invective being directed toward the woman's insurance company.  It has been reported that the company is refusing to acknowledge any liability--or, according to some reports--is significantly reducing its payouts because the poor lady had not disclosed her "open house" policy to the insurance company when taking out insurance.  The company is seen to be blaming the woman for her misfortune.  The overwhelming view is that the woman had done nothing wrong; she was a victim pure and simple, and the neighbours, the police, and the insurance company were effectively excusing the thieves and implying the woman deserved all she had got.

What is one to make of this brouhaha?  Should the detective be disciplined, if not dismissed?  Should the neighbour's be forced to apologise to this poor woman?  Should the insurance company be arraigned before the Human Rights Tribunal?

Or should the whole eructation of outrage be dismissed as lunatic?  Of course.  And we all understand it.  If one does not take responsible steps to protect one's property, if thieves break in and steal then there is a sense in which one bears a certain responsibility.  Everyone knows that.  Everyone acknowledges that.  But at the same time, no-one thinks that is providing any justification whatsoever to the opportunistic thieves.  No-one complains when insurance companies change premium rates according to our protective architecture.  Everybody respects the police when they issue helpful warnings to homeowners about the danger of theft and what ought to be done to protect against it.  No-one--bar no-one--thinks that such things justify the crime of theft in any sense whatsoever.

Why, then, is the crime of rape put in a special category?  Why is advice and admonition urging prudence and responsibility regarded as excusing that crime?   Logically and rationally the one does not follow the other at all.  We clearly see this when it comes to other crimes and the the universal acknowledgement of the need for measures of prudence, deterrence and protection with respect to them.  Why is rape in a special category?  Why can't one discuss measures of care, prudence, and protection without being accused of justifying rape?  What ideology is being mined?  What is the sub-text of this typical discombobulation reported in the NZ Herald and Stuff.