American businessman fined $1,734 for stealing dive gear

[KathyV]

What a sleaze! It is smart of Don Foster's to have closed circuit camera surveillance by the drying room. I am glad that the judge convicted and fined him.

BTW, $1,734 CI equals $2,115 US.

American businessman fined $1,734 for stealing dive gear | Cayman Compass

 

[flyboy08]

We can use a judicial system that quick here in the USA

 

[mmmbelows]

I hate thieves in this world, just don't understand how people can be so selfish.

 

[Doctorfish]

Unbelievable that someone who has been travelling to Cayman for years would indulge in theft of this nature. I'm glad his name was published and hope he ends up on Cayman's undesirable entry list.

I personally think the penalty was too lenient.

 

[KathyV]

I hate thieves in this world, just don't understand how people can be so selfish.

It's hard understand theft but if someone was hungry and stealing to feed his family then it would be easier, but this guy is vacationing in Cayman at his family's condo - he's not starving!

I couldn't believe the reaction of many people to a theft that my family experienced. My husband went to the cemetery to visit the graves of his parents only to discover that someone had stolen the grave marker to get the bronze value! I was totally amazed by the number of people who said "Oh, isn't it sad that someone was so desperate to be driven to do such a thing!"

All I could think was this. My father-in-law didn't have an easy life but he would never rob a grave no matter how hard things got! Yet I'm supposed to feel sorry for the sleaze that stole the grave marker he bought for his wife with his hard-earned money? No way!

And I don't feel sorry for this American businessman that helped himself to some dive equipment, either!

 

[boulderjohn]

From the story:

Defense attorney John Meghoo asked that a conviction not be recorded against Stone, saying his client was a businessman who traveled to various countries, so a conviction could lead to travel consequences.

Magistrate Kirsty-Ann Gunn said that for a first offense of this type, the sentence would normally be a financial penalty. Mr. Meghoo asked for costs to be imposed rather than a fine so that Stone could keep his good name.

To me this shows the difference in societal attitudes toward crime depending upon who committed the crime. We are supposed to be concerned that this common thief might be harmed in his life as a businessman if his reputation is spoiled by his crime becoming public knowledge.

Imagine a poor criminal in an American court system, especially a minority, having an attorney make similar pleas. "Your honor, although my client shoplifted several thousand dollars worth of jewelry, we ask that a conviction not be recorded so that he can travel unimpeded in the future, or so that he can more easily get a new job, or...whatever." "Your honor, although my client shoplifted several thousand dollars worth of jewelry, we ask that his case be handled in such a way that he can keep his good name."

 

[KathyV]

...To me this shows the difference in societal attitudes toward crime depending upon who committed the crime.

Perhaps, but I also think that it may just reflect the attempts of defense attorneys to come up with the best sob story to fit the situation. The attorney wouldn't make a similar plea in the scenario you suggest; he would make a plea with a better chance of gaining sympathy for the defendant. "Your honor this person is disadvantaged so he shouldn't be punished" instead of "Your honor, this person has a good reputation that shouldn't be tarnished"; both arguments are pretty weak in my opinion.

 

[Doctorfish]

Unless I'm reading the Compass wrong, Mr Andrew Stone's "good name" has already been lost, independent of fine vs. costs. If we are talking about this here, hopefully, so will the media in his hometown.

Businessman? Who would want to do business in future with a common thief, If he would steal a reg and BC, he would potentially steal from his own clients as well.

 

[boulderjohn]

"Your honor, this person has a good reputation that shouldn't be tarnished"; both arguments are pretty weak in my opinion.

I agree that both are weak, but we have seen the good reputation that would be tarnished" argument work very successfully in a lot of cases recently.

 

[Scott]

Unless I'm reading the Compass wrong, Mr Andrew Stone's "good name" has already been lost, independent of fine vs. costs. If we are talking about this here, hopefully, so will the media in his hometown.

Businessman? Who would want to do business in future with a common thief, If he would steal a reg and BC, he would potentially steal from his own clients as well.

Unless Mr. Stone brags to his neighbors or friends how is anyone going to find out? The article fails to mention which state in the US he lives in. Which is probably good for him.