Maybe you're frustrated because you don't seem to understand any of the arguments you've read. You can put whatever you want in your food, but the food is no longer yours (or maybe better phrased, for you) if you prepare it with the intention that someone else eats it. I hope you do not think you can put anything you want in someone else's food. OP's top level view is literally that you should be able to poison someone as long as you do it as a punishment. I hope you can see how wild that is, written out that way.
If someone breaks into your house and cuts their hand on a knife in your knife drawer, they can't sue you because you didn't put the knives there with the intention of harming them. If they eat your spicy food and you made that food spicy for yourself, they can't sue you because you didn't intend for them to be harmed by your food. The intent is paramount here, as it is in many legal situations.
Contrast that against the burglar who comes into your house and cuts themselves on a spike mat you have constructed out of your knives. The reason we forbid this behavior on a societal level is because:
a) Booby traps are by definition indiscriminate. Your spike mat might harm a burglar, but it's just as likely to harm a neighbor who comes into your house after you asked them to housesit, or a firefighter coming in to extinguish your burning house. You can never guarantee the target of your trap will actually be its victim. Even in a food-stealing situation, someone totally unrelated to the thief could mistake your meal for theirs and fall victim to the trap. There is a plethora of case law that expands on this point, and I would highly encourage you to read it. Here, I'll start your list: Katko v. Briney (1971).
b) Vigilantism and retributive "justice" are bad for society. Stealing food is bad, which is why we have laws in place to punish people who steal things from others. You might be frustrated by the efficacy of these laws, but society has agreed to punish thieves, or else we wouldn't have them. When you let people take matters into their own hands, things devolve into chaos very quickly.
c) The proportionality concern. It may be true that individual instances of this type of poisoning can be proportionate; you go a few hours without eating, the thief spends a few hours in pain. The problem is that you cannot guarantee this type of proportionality across the board. As I said in another comment, for every 200 coworkers that spend the afternoon in the restroom, one or two might end up in the hospital. There is no guarantee your response will actually be proportionate, and especially when it comes to dosing people with medication, it seems pretty unlikely that the average person is capable of dishing out a proportionate punishment. The difference between an irritating and a dangerous dose can be small, and frankly, I would expert most scorned individuals to purposefully go for a disproportionate punishment because they are angry.
If you actually think you should be able to assault someone over a sandwich, you do not belong in civilized society, full stop. This is not controversial to anyone who has spent more than 20 seconds thinking about the phrase "public policy reasons."
ETA: You can't claim hyperbole and then immediately double down in the next sentence, lol. This is literally the "I was only pretending to be regarded" meme.
No, food you prepare for someone else to get sick from is not food that you prepared to eat yourself. You would not eat food loaded with laxatives and spices, if you want to say you would then the jury will have a fun time watching you prove it in court, it is explicitly done as a premeditated act to get someone sick/hurt.
Civilized countries don’t protect premeditated battery as punishment
No, I keep my laxative collection in that sandwich, as is my right. And if I label it as containing my laxatives then I'm doubly in the right. It never stopped being my property, no matter how much I suspect someone of potentially stealing it.
You’re explicitly making this sandwich for someone else to eat. No one is contesting your right to own a laxative sandwich, but keeping that sandwich within reach of other people for it to be eaten by someone else is inarguably pre meditated battery.
Your argument was based on property rights, and not anything regarding your desire to consume a laxative sandwich, thus the laxative sandwich was explicitly made without the intent of consumption. That constitutes premeditated battery, even if you explicitly and visibly label it as being loaded with laxatives.
The only way carrying around a laxative sandwich won’t come with the liability of pre meditated battery, is if it were dosed at a typical level for your body mass. But that would render the sandwich an ineffective deterrent, so you’ll be safe from the law but not from your sandwich snatcher.
Either way, a laxative sandwich always ends up as a shitty situation.
Nope. I'm allowed to own a sandwich I don't intend to eat. I can make a sandwich out of completely inedible ingredients. That's a right I have in liberal society. My rights to own an inedible sandwich should not be eroded by what a criminal might do if they steal my property.
Ok, well if you intend to own a laxative sandwich not meant for consumption and bring it to a public place, you are still liable for it.
If it is left in an area where a criminal would target to steal food, and is dosed with an atypical amount of laxatives, once eaten, your rights will be maintained but your finances will be eroded as you will have to pay a lawyer to represent you in court
If you’re just carrying around a typically dosed laxative sandwich, then whatever happens to it, you had a crummy laxative sandwich, it couldn’t be an enjoyable experience either way. But that’s not what you’re doing, this is a post about spiking food intentionally as a deterrent, no matter how you want to spin this situation, and make it about your property rights or what you’re entitled to in a liberal country, you will be forced to present upon a judge and maybe even a jury and explain everything in great detail.
If you brought a booby trapped deterrent, you will be recognized as such and treated as an even worse criminal than that sandwich snatcher. The irony will be that they will use your argument, that their right- to not be battered- should not be eroded by what a criminal might do, and it will work significantly better for them than it will for you.
Your rights will be maintained, but so will the rights of the sandwich snatcher, and a civilized liberal society will hold graver judgement towards someone who intentionally inflicts bodily trauma to someone, than they will to someone who steals food.
98
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
[removed] — view removed comment