They seem to think it's okay because "insurance," or something.
My wife worked in a prison for about 14 years. The guys she dealt with were in a 'rehab' program that lasted a couple of years and the rest of any sentence they had was adjudicated IF they finished the program.
These guys had to do what was called "Thinking Reports" where they would go back to where the problem actually occurred and work forward from there trying to teach them if they could change their thinking that caused them to do what got them locked up, then they wouldn't have to worry about it.
One of the most interesting and frustrating things she used to tell me about these guys was how many of them didn't see theft as an issue because you should have insurance and if you didn't, that was your fault, not theirs. When asked if they understood how insurance worked, they had no clue. They had zero concept of a deductible. None of them, absolutely NONE of them had ever heard of a deductible and had no idea that those they were stealing from were actually out money.
On the other side of that, even when it was pointed out the person may have to take a day off to go get the car window fixed that they bashed in (and pay cash because the deductible was too high to worry about a claim), they didn't see the loss of income as a loss to the victim of their crime. Their reasoning was "they could use a vacation day", or "the company should let them have a few hours off to go do that."
Their thinking is like what I see at the DUmp regularly. The victim should simply be willing to eat the cost (no matter what that is, even physical) if the person doing the crime is somehow perceived as a person who simply needed it more and you had too much so it was "fair game."
Reminds me of Rocket in the Guardian of the Galaxy move where he asked; if someone has something that I need more than that person, is it ok if I take it? The response was; that's theft. To which Rocket said; but I need it MORE sir!
KC
