Quote:
Originally Posted by jmk59
I agree with Adam. When it's our interests that are making their way through the legal system, it's about our rights and testing contested positions in court. When it's someone else's interests making their way through the legal system, now it's seeking loopholes.
People go to court every day for trivial items. When it comes to 10's of thousands of dollars, those who think ownership should simply be surrendered are largely those who don't own the item.
It likely won't get to that, but if Leon (or NYPL, for that matter) end up using the legal system to sort out ownership, there's no wrong in that.
|
Ok I have a huge issue with this. You are conflating legal right with moral right. They are two different things.
I can steal a million dollars and get off because they didn't read me my miranda rights. Does that mean that taking that million dollars is suddenly ok? If someone rapes someone and the statutes of limitations expire before they come to trial, does that make the action ok? No, just because someone has the law on their side doesn't mean their actions were morally acceptable.
To hold onto a stolen item by virtue of a legal technicality would be morally wrong wrong wrong and wrong no matter how you try and rationalize it to yourself. It doesn't suddenly become acceptable just because there's no legal recourse.
You'd be surprised, but there are a lot of people out there who would return the item without trying to leverage the legal system to keep it, just on the basis of it being the morally right thing to do. Then again there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't do the right thing and have a hard time understanding someone who would...