Let's play another game. Who deserves the harsher punishment?
Obviously person B. A is self defense.
This is more what I was aiming at ^ - Criminal A in the scenario used violence/threat of violence, which is worse. I'm not trying to downlplay fraud, I'm trying to show that violence and the threat of violence is worse. That's why I put forth the other scenario - if it's self defence, it's means that in the initial scenario, the fact the gun was not discharged doesn't make the threat of violence any less real than actually using the gun. It still has serious consequences. The argument most seem to be making is that burglary is worse than a mugging because the burglar has robbed more people than the mugger. I'm trying to say that even the threat of violence makes the first crime worse.
Libertarian minimalist nonsense. Physical violence isn't so clearly seperate from the rest of human relations by a iron curtain. Suppose the money stolen by Person B prevented the access of one of his clients to a life-saving operation, actually casuing death. This is why a utilitarian approach is necessary, and the crime of Person B is more egregious.
Poll
