In 2013, 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 steals
his customer’s identities to create credit cards. With those fraudulent credit
cards he purchased gift cards. He then uses the gift cards to buy merchandise
(including iPads, cellphones, etc.) and resold those merchandises for profit.
This scheme allows them to make cash with stolen identities and make it harder
to trace.
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. Almost anyone can sell anything in a stand, some stands don’t require
licensing. I do believe when a customer is making a purchase, it is their
choice whether to trust who they’re buying from. If they choose to purchase
with them, they’re technically “trusting” them and that makes the buyer
accountable for their purchase. Now at department stores, they are licensed to
sell and that makes the store accountable for our purchases and personal information
given at purchase. In the same time, any form of identity is wrong and
unacceptable. Rawl believes the blame is associated with their attitudes, which
is the outcome of people’s voluntary choices. He believes in choices with
social or biological circumstances. Circumstances on how the society views
situations and actions led from how a person was raised. 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 don’t 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 Yousheei did was wrong and he
shall be arrested but it's unfair that he will be punished more than his wrong doing.
The moral stake is to think before you act. Regardless of
the outcome, your actions and will power will define the blame and fairness. 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:
No comments:
Post a Comment