A Brighton man by the name of Shahab “David” Yousheei was
arrested in an undercover sting operation at Boston Common. Yousheei and his
crew had a kiosk in Downtown Crossing where he sold items with a credit card
encoder. He then steals his customers identities to open credit cards, used
those fraudulent credit cards to purchase gift cards, used those gift cards to
buy merchandise (including iPads, cellphones, etc.), and resold those
merchandises for profit. This scheme makes it harder to trace and allows them
to make cash with stolen identities.
Yousheei stole thousands of dollars worth of items from
identity theft. He and his crew repeatedly used the same scheme. They saw an
open opportunity and the lack of responsibility from customer’s not protecting
their identity and took advantage to steal from them. Identity fraud is against
the law but it makes me wonder if it’s entirely the attacker’s fault that the
victim is not protecting their identity. This leads to the moral aspect of
blame. Philosopher John Rawl’s A Theory
of Justice (1971), stated fair circumstances for everyone to have the
opportunity to pursue their aims. People argued that blame leans more towards
personal responsibilities. So who’s at fault? I do believe identity theft is
wrong, but I also believe it is a person’s responsibility to protect their
identity. Rawl believes the blame is associated with their attitudes, which is
the outcome of people’s voluntary choices. Choices not subject to our control.
Rawl believes choices with social or biological circumstances. Circumstances on
how the society views situations and actions lead from how a person was raised.
He did not focus on choices with personal responsibility. On the other hand, Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974),
believed in individual rights and personal responsibilities. This situation would
be problematic because the individual has the right to fight for their identity
but they also have to fight to keep their identity.
Yousheei was arrested when Boston Police set him up to buy
counterfeit money. According to Counterfeiting Laws and Penalties, someone
guilty of counterfeiting can face up to 20 years in prison, but the person who
passes or attempts to pass counterfeit faces only 5years. I understand we need
to keep criminals in jail but the Boston Police Department stated “we will
continue to join forces with our law enforcement partners to put you out of
business and in jail.” I agree that Yousheei should not have accepted to
purchase counterfeit money and that he should be arrested for identity theft
but I do not agree that they set him up with a different crime for longer
sentencing, is this fair? Dan-Cohen believes, “the main goal of the criminal
law ought to be to defend the unique moral worth of every human being.” I feel
like the Boston Police is selecting his fate. What he did was wrong and he
shall be arrested but the he will be punished more than his wrong doing.
There are many mishaps in this case, the moral lesson on
blame and fairness is endless. Yousheei got charges for identity theft, illegal
possession of a credit card encoder, falsely making credit card, using a
fraudulent credit card, receiving goods purchased with a fraudulent credit
card, and possession of counterfeit money.
Sources:
Strength/Insight/Improvement
ReplyDeleteThis raises the question of responsibility and offering up a solution of "they asked for it". I agree that people need to protect themselves from outside intruders, but there has to be a line. You have some great quotes and information on philosophers in your topic, check out:
http://www.egs.edu/library/john-locke/quotes/
http://thinkexist.com/quotations/responsibility/
I believe that corruption comes into play here with the Police and them what seems to be hunting down this man. Check out: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Foregonstate.edu%2Finstruct%2Fphl201%2Fmodules%2FPhilosophers%2FAugustine%2Faugustine_evil.html&ei=pTA4VYi7H4XhaOWCgJAM&usg=AFQjCNGJo18WzRvrUZNxfFf9IiUwPVZckQ&sig2=N-LNVAnQUpVLdBToGmawRA&bvm=bv.91427555,d.bGQ
Overalll, this is a strong topic that is put together really well.
I think you did a great job describing the case, adding you opinion and then backing it up with the philosopher's point of view.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mzqueen Green, you did a great job describing the case, but i love how you used quotes to back up your ideas, and the philosophers you used to back up your idea really relates to the case.
ReplyDeleteYou did an amazing job giving details points about the case and you also use philosophers to back them up. I enjoyed reading it because its in our own backyard. For the final draft, try adding your own points of view to match the philosophers
ReplyDeleteStrength/Insight/Improvement
ReplyDeleteI like this case, you did an awesome job getting details and I also liked the way you used the philosophers positions to support or deny and action that happened in this case.
Improvement:
I think that you did project your opinion by no agreeing with Yousheei and the police of what they done but I would agree with Mzqueen, maybe add a separated paragraph that will have your clear opinion might make it clearer. other ways I relay liked your draft.
I'd agree with Black Capo.
ReplyDeleteI like that you presented differing views on the case, but I'd like to see you take a side. It's a tough question. We need to consider how much of protecting our identity falls on the government (and credit card companies) and how much is on us. For most cases, you can really only be so careful, and we can just monitor after that. The government and card companies are the ones with investigation and enforcement power. Where would you draw the line?