Mr. Chairman, if we accept poverty as an excuse for crime, where do we draw the line? Will armed robbers tell the court that poverty made them rob banks? Will kidnappers say poverty forced them to abduct innocent children? Will internet fraudsters claim poverty made them deceive elderly people?

If poverty is accepted as a universal excuse for crime, drawing a line becomes problematic because it implies that any criminal act, regardless of its severity, could be justified by economic hardship. This perspective would logically extend to severe crimes: If armed robbers claim poverty made them rob banks, accepting this excuse would mean they are not held accountable for their actions, despite the violence and financial harm caused. Similarly, if kidnappers say poverty forced them to abduct innocent children, or internet fraudsters claim poverty made them deceive elderly people, these heinous acts would also be excused. Accepting poverty as an excuse for crime would undermine the principles of justice, personal responsibility, and societal order, making it impossible to prosecute even the most egregious offenses if the perpetrator cites economic hardship. Send me the next one 📸