The post that was quoted here has been removed

All modern justice systems evaluate punishments based, at least partially, on the harm wrought by the crime. If Person A drives drunk and swerves and hits a mailbox and Person B drives drunk and swerves and hits and kills a person, Person A is likely going to be fined or have his license suspended while Person B is going to prison for years. This is true in pretty much any justice system you can point to.

Punishing theft at least partially based on the value of the item stolen is the substantially universal practice.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Another retarded false analogy.
The 2 foot long cardboard poster was hardly a "designer label priced at thousands of dollars".
What is it with you? Do you even think before coming up with these bizarre comparisons that make no sense whatsoever?
You cannot possibly be stupid enough to think your suggestion was comparable.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ain't nobody putting words in your mouth, just repeating what you said.
It's all there for everyone to see.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I have no intention of stealing designer clothing and at no time was I disputing your assertion that the person could probably sell the poster for a high price on ebay. To jump from what I did said to the idea that I'd support such a lame case before a judge is an incredible leap requiring a large helping of obtuseness.

But it is unlikely that anyone in North Korea would be able to sell the item on ebay and no one else is in a position to export such items to sell on ebay. In my mind, stealing is a crime, and that includes stealing from large, greedy corporations as well as non-wealthy individuals. No one is disputing that the theft was a crime. Fishhead's point still remains, the institution from which the item was stolen is only out a few cents production cost. And this fact should be relevant in meting out punishment.

You're a smart person. If you can't understand this it is because you're choosing not to understand.

Edit: I have no dog in this fight concerning the man arrested in North Korea. I have some degree of sympathy for him not because I'm "pro-capitalist", but rather because I was young once and have done a number of stupid things too. Just a little bad luck here and there could have significantly changed my life for the worse and I'd have had no one to blame but myself. And I've got kids too, who I hope become mentally mature before they commit some relatively minor mistake that ruins their life forever. The man in North Korea made a bad choice, but it brings me no joy to see the excessive consequences he is facing. And I'm offended that you've pigeonholed my opinion as something that could only stem from a blind adherence to a capitalist world view.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Evidently you started your reply before my edit, so I'll include that here in case you missed it...

I have no dog in this fight concerning the man arrested in North Korea. I have some degree of sympathy for him not because I'm "pro-capitalist", but rather because I was young once and have done a number of stupid things too. Just a little bad luck here and there could have significantly changed my life for the worse and I'd have had no one to blame but myself. And I've got kids too, who I hope become mentally mature before they commit some relatively minor mistake that ruins their life forever. The man in North Korea made a bad choice, but it brings me no joy to see the excessive consequences he is facing. And I'm offended that you've pigeonholed my opinion as something that could only stem from a blind adherence to a capitalist world view.

As far as your analogies go, each case has it's own context. It does no good to make analogies that consider part of the context but ignore the rest. I am not arguing at all on the "value" of the item. I am contending that the seriousness of the crime (and punishment) should consider the amount of harm done to the victim.

Consider another possibility... A neighbor take prescription drugs for a serious medical condition. Someone while visiting steals a few pills worth perhaps $20 and as a result the neighbor dies. What kind of crime has been committed? Is it a petty theft of a $20 item or is it a serious crime? Is the value of the item on the open market the only thing that counts in determining how serious the crime is, or do we take into consideration all relevant facts?

Or consider another example, what if a major celebrity, say Brittany Spears, steals a paint brush from a friend and gets arrested. After the tabloids get a hold of it and it goes public, everyone is obsessed with the case. Could the prosecutor make the case that after the trial this "paint brush" could bring in tens of thousands of dollars on ebay because of the notoriety of the case? Consequently, Brittany Spears should be sentenced as if she stole a $10,000 item? Most adults recognize this pitch would be absurd. That is because most adults can consider all the relevant facts.

Again, to take what I have written and suggest that I'd think the US would extradite the man to North Korea is an incredible leap of obtuseness. My children are not even that obtuse.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If you're sentenced to 10 years in prison and statistics show you should been sentenced to 8 years instead, I don't have a lot of sympathy. You're certainly not a "victim" in any sense of the word I take seriously.

If you're sentenced to 15 years for a crime that would typically bring 20 hours community service in most places, then I do have sympathy. And that applies whether the person committing the crime is black, white or other.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchess again shows her abysmal 'reading comprehension'.

Although I have said I believe the theft was a crime, she thinks that criticism of the harshness of a sentence means I don't think North Korea should have the right to make laws. In fact, she criticizes US sentencing disparities showing apparently that she doesn't believe the US should have the right to make its own laws (using her own obtuse logic, not mine).

"I have never noticed TechSouth, a right-wing white American, object to the common
disproportionately harsh sentencing of black men in the United States."
- Duchess

Apparently Duchess believes that whatever I haven't complained about on RHP means I am in complete support of. An incredible leap of logic. Anyone reading can judge for themselves the merit of her criticism.