criminal or survival?

[psycho-squirrel2]

A man's wife is dying of a particular type of cancer. There is a cure, but the pharmacist who found it charges 10 times more then it costs to make it. (by the way, this isn't in America)

The man has 3/4 of the money to pay for the drug. He had asked the town to help him. However the pharmacist doesn't take it, saying that he made the drug so he deserves the full profit.

The man then steals some of the drug and saves his wife.

Now would you say this man was a criminal or was just a man trying to save his wife.

Or would you say that the pharmacist was the criminal and got what he deserved?

If you were a judge, how would you look at this?

If you were in the man's shoes, what would you have done? Steal the drug and save your wife or not steal it and let her die. (Getting more money isn't one of the options because remember, even with the town's help, it still wasn't enough)

This is an example of how to look at the diffrence of theft crimes.

People that steal just because they want a new car, those are the true criminals

People that steal because they need money to feed their family, those are the people acting on human nature of survival. (Assuming that they dont have enough money no matter how hard they save.)

[AlmightyLemon]

If i was the judge i would let the man repay the pharmisist over time and if i was the person i would of stole it in a blink of an eye.

[PenguinTamer]

Do what Americans are best at: Sue the pharmacists ass.

[psycho-squirrel2]

At 1/19/07 06:20 PM, PenguinTamer wrote: Do what Americans are best at: Sue the pharmacists ass.

well, as i said it wasnt in america.

[zzzzd]

Same sort of thing to stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family. He's not a criminal he's doing what he has to.

[SyntheticTacos]

That pharmacist should have let him have it and let him pay it overtime, the woman was dying!

[SolInvictus]

the problem is that if one rules against the pharmacist then why was no action taken prior to this incident seeing as the pharmacist was supposedly unjust?

[mrblonde7395]

all about supply and demand the demand for the cure was high so i don't blame the pharmacist for jacking up the price 10X ,but i think he should let the guy pay the 3/4 as a down payment and pay it over in a few days, week, months, etc.

[ReiperX]

Multiple problems.

America is one of the only countries that does not have a cap on what a Pharmacutical company can charge.

In all likelihood if he did need the money, a charity would help out.

But if he still did steal them, I honestly would not blame him at all, I'd do it for my wife as well. There wouldn't be a jury that would convict you harshly, and if you could attempt to start repayment I doubt charges would even be brought up due to the negative plublicity that the pharmicutical company would recieve from doing that.

[reviewer-general]

The most the guy could be charged with is theft, or perhaps breaking and entering depending on the exact circumstances, and the penalties for that aren't harsh at all, and no jury would ever rule against him, it's more likely that they would have something to say about the pharmacist [sic]. Let him pay the rest of the money, and tell that pharmacist to quit being a greedy asshole.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I would charge him with theft.

Due to existing laws and business practices, a business is allowed to charge whatever it wants for it's merchandise.

This man stole that merchandise.

[Ranger2]

At 1/19/07 06:20 PM, PenguinTamer wrote: Do what Americans are best at: Sue the pharmacists ass.

Shut up, you anti american prejudice-spewer

[bradford1]

A lot of crime only exists because society can be so unfair at times that the only way for some to keep their heads above the water is to break society's rules.

In America (or wherever the situation took place in besides America), it's perfectly legal to sell a drug for 10 times the production cost. This accepted action pushed the man whose wife was dying into a corner, where his only option was to break the rules.

Why then would the judge punish the man? Was the man to let his wife die because some rich asshole in a mansion wanted a couple dollars extra?

The social structure which causes crimes of this sort should be shaken up and destroyed.

[Red-Knuckles]

I would say he was trying to safe a persons life not a criminal

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Is his wife hot?Lol, yeah i'd save her, she'd so owe me. And if i were the judge, i'd have him give the money to the pharmacist he had, and that would be that, maybe give him community service, it's legal slave labor! Yay, the towns streets benefit, she lives, and the pharmacist makes 3/4, good enough.

[Draconias]

At 1/21/07 04:32 AM, bradford1 wrote: A lot of crime only exists because society can be so unfair at times that the only way for some to keep their heads above the water is to break society's rules.

In America (or wherever the situation took place in besides America), it's perfectly legal to sell a drug for 10 times the production cost. This accepted action pushed the man whose wife was dying into a corner, where his only option was to break the rules.

If only that was true. The "corner" was only in his own mind. The man had several other options he did not pursue:

A. Borrowing money. Contact friends, family, philanthropists, the bank, the state, the media/public, your employer, your church, a charity, anyone who might let you have or borrow money, and talk to them about it.

B. Scrounge up the money. Get another mortgage on your house, sell your house, sell your car, sell that antique vase you own, call in debts, break open the retirement fund, make a deal with the pharmacist, whatever you can possibly do.

C. Go somewhere else. Don't waste time with this scamming pharmacist, go somewhere else and buy from another, cheaper source. If the medicine costs so much (both the man and the town can't afford it), then $50 for plane tickets is negligible.

D. Allow her to die. Come to terms with the fact that everyone dies eventually and even the medicine you want to buy may not save her. You could lose everything you have to give her a couple more years (maybe) or she could decide not to fight it.

That's a lot of options, a lot of choics. At the very end, it is still a crime to steal the medicine, but he wouldn't be judged too harshly for the crime regardless of what happens to his wife. It will be seen as an act of desperation, but it is a crime nonetheless.

[keinve1]

it depends on your perspective. really, everything does. evidentaly, you want a point of view. mine? he should have let her die, and gotten over it.

[Humous]

He is a criminal. Yes, i would have stolen the wonderdrug if i was him- i actually might have stolen ALOT and sold it for cheaper. there are no blurry lines in legeal description; if you want to use the doctors idea LEGALLY, than you have to pay whatever he asks.

[random8982]

Wasn't this exact same topic brought up in a thread a while back?

[troubles1]

it is a criminal offence and the person deserves to be punished , a judge cannot take into account why the [person did it only weather if guilty of doing the crime. if we let the man off then the next person would fell that they also would be entitled to get it instead of trying all other options first would just go straight to stealing it knowing that there would be no consequence's for his actions.

if I had no other option I would do whatever it takes to save and care for my family,, yet I would be prepared for the punishment that comes with it in the event I got caught.

[Mrgothic101]

If i had someone i cared about that much i might kill to get the cure maybe but if i was the judge i would make the pay for the medicine but in payments.

[sovietspy47]

The pharmacist is a criminal i don't belive you can put a price on a human life the man did the right thing.

[Elfer]

At 2/13/07 02:29 PM, troubles1 wrote: it is a criminal offence and the person deserves to be punished , a judge cannot take into account why the [person did it only weather if guilty of doing the crime.

You've never taken a law class, have you?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/14/07 12:41 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/13/07 02:29 PM, troubles1 wrote: it is a criminal offence and the person deserves to be punished , a judge cannot take into account why the [person did it only weather if guilty of doing the crime.

You've never taken a law class, have you?

He could be illustrating theories he learned from a law class.

I remeber a law theorist that I learned about in Justice and Society who propsed what this poster said.

Basically it was just split into guilty or not guilty and intent wasn't considered.

I'm trying to remember his name.

[Gunter45]

It's clearly an act of civil disobedience. Yes, he did the right thing and, by doing so, he exposed a major flaw in the system. However, as such, he must still be subject to the system's rule. In all legality, he should be punished, but, taking into account the nature of the case, he could rally significant support to reform whatever law is in place concerning pharmaceutical practices. He's guilty as hell of grand larceny, but he could make appeals concerning the nature of the law, taking it to, if the system is similar to America's, the Supreme Court. If they don't overturn the law, then he could start a grassroots movement from prison to see that the law is changed by popular support.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/14/07 04:25 PM, Gunter45 wrote: If they don't overturn the law, then he could start a grassroots movement from prison to see that the law is changed by popular support.

But by overturning the law, it would be a clear violation of personal economic and natural law rights and a desecration of the use of private property.

A man is entitled to life, liberty and property and according to the constitution, he can't have any of these taken away without Due Process.

[Gunter45]

At 2/14/07 04:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: But by overturning the law, it would be a clear violation of personal economic and natural law rights and a desecration of the use of private property.

A man is entitled to life, liberty and property and according to the constitution, he can't have any of these taken away without Due Process.

They wouldn't be taken away without due process. A company charging more than a particular person has for something isn't a constitutional violation. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous precedents for civil disobedience. The procedure is that a person must be tried under the present law. This is what brings attention to the injustice of that particular law. Also, isn't that pharmacist protected under the law, too? By allowing somebody to break the law and just let him off due to extenuating circumstances, you start a dangerous precedent. What happens is that people begin to believe that stealing is justifiable and legal for the sake of necessity. What has to happen is that this man must be tried for commiting a crime. If the appeals process fails, then he can always subject his grievance to the public for them to decide what's right and wrong.

Every time a law is broken, whether it's a just or unjust violation, it must go through the proper channels in order to maintain order. Providing order is the principle function of law.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/14/07 04:37 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 2/14/07 04:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

They wouldn't be taken away without due process. A company charging more than a particular person has for something isn't a constitutional violation.

Thats the point I am arguing. That the private market has the right to do whatever they wish with thier product.

Every time a law is broken, whether it's a just or unjust violation, it must go through the proper channels in order to maintain order. Providing order is the principle function of law.

Providing order and the protection of rights is the only function of law.

I'm just arguing that no court in these United States would ever overturn a law on private property and the free markety.

[Gunter45]

At 2/14/07 04:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I'm just arguing that no court in these United States would ever overturn a law on private property and the free markety.

We're not talking about America, for one. Secondly, I said that if your garner enough popular support, you can press enormous leverage on that particular company and the government. Maybe you couldn't get the government to bend on that person's release, but at least he could make a difference for everyone else. Of course, even if nothing changed based on his imprisonment, he knew the risks he was taking when he stole the medicine. In that light, he chose something he felt was important, even at the expense of his own freedom. I believe that it would be the right choice, but that he should also go to prison for it. The court's would most probably be extremely lenient on the sentencing, anyway, giving him the minimum sentence and probably a chance for parole, seeing as how he's not a risk for a repeat offense and the circumstances played a major role in his motivation. So, really, it's not like he would get completely and totally screwed.

[troubles1]

At 2/14/07 12:41 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/13/07 02:29 PM, troubles1 wrote: it is a criminal offence and the person deserves to be punished , a judge cannot take into account why the [person did it only weather if guilty of doing the crime.

You've never taken a law class, have you?

NO But my wife is a lawyer, And her aunt is the deputy prosecutor, does that count?