I was thinking about some things as you do, and an interesting question came to me. Scavette wanted me to watch the Titanic and that's how this happened.
So, the question is: 1) if a piece of jewelry is stolen by someone, and then sold to another person, ethically speaking should it be taken from the person who bought it, even though they did nothing wrong themselves?
2), let's say the person who bought it ed it down to their kids, and only then is it discovered that it was stolen; should it still be confiscated from that person and returned to the original owner/their family?
As a follow up follow up to anyone willing to answer in the comments, how many generations should until that jewelery should no longer be given back?
Comments (7)
Depends on how much it’s worth sentimentally to the stolen family
If the thief is still alive then they should face charges
As to if it should be given back it really depends on the value to each of the families.
the state should pay for another identical jewel as reparation for the new owner
Reply to: melo (girl)
What happens to the money given to the thief?
Reply to: Scav828
assess their economical situation and help them reinsert depending on it, if they're too poor then there's no need to inflict an additional financial sentence on them
This should depend on litigation— and ideally with two since it’s basically become an heirloom— there might be negotiation over the price of the jewelry depending on how much it costs if they want to keep it.
We also don’t know the worth of the jewelry to the family who had it. We shouldn’t just say, “Oh, well, it’s rude to the family who is losing the jewelry.” It’s also potentially harmful to the family who in this theoretical discussion never necessarily had all that much money anyways. So, I say— make the person who bought the stolen good and have them pay the family who originally had it a few to hold onto it.
For #1, yes if the amount spent is returned back to the person who made the purchase, otherwise it is just enabling one form of theft over another.
For #2, same as #1.
Niggas finna be voting the “No, yes/no” option like there’s no personal-private distinction in property criticism :sob: