Quote:
|
Did you know that auto theft is considered victimless because insurance companies (supposedly) pay for replacement of the vehicle?
|
Who told you that? You saw that on TV, didn't you?
You make some good arguments why auto theft
should not be considered a victimless crime. Would the courts agree that auto theft is a crime with no victim because the victim has a contract with some private party for reimbursement for damages sustained because of the theft? I don't think so. One has no bearing on the other, and what relevance would the presence of an insurance policy have during a criminal trial for auto theft? None, I would think. Not it my court, anyway.
And furthermore, people are rarely charged with "auto theft." They are more often charged with "possession of stolen property." They are charged with PSP because, unless they're dumb enough to make a confession, there's no evidence that they stole the car they were caught in. So, technically, the crime of "auto theft" is rarely solved.
(God, I went way overboard explaining this.)