Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557

by pekko • 10 years ago

241 384 10 years ago

bbc.com

notsotrue14• 10 years ago

By this logic, money theft is 'not a crime' if poor.

c0nducktr3• 10 years ago

How so?

Sweetness• 10 years ago

Food is a bit more essential.

notsotrue14• 10 years ago

Is it? Here in Canada, an empty belly won't kill you if you have the energy to steal, but the -45c nights will absolutely turn you into a popsicle. And you can't steal shelter. But you can steal money to provide a roof.

sp3325• 10 years ago

Being poor shouldn't mean you can't get basic life-sustaining things like food, shelter, clothing. That's why being poor is not an excuse for stealing but being hungry is.

notsotrue14• 10 years ago

Agreed, I'm all for basic income, and social safety nets. But stealing them, isn't the right answer either. The burden should be on the state to provide those necessities, not the local business owners.

drzaiusapelord4• 10 years ago

Considering Italy is a welfare-style state, this just opens up cannoli snatching and such instead of going to whatever socialized or charitable shelters and services. Unhealthy high sugar and high caffeine foods will be in demand by snatchers.

Ironically, this is going to hurt the working poor the most who work at low margin restaurants, retail shops, etc as people just grab whatever they want because there is no more law protecting them. It also seems like a good way to get into beatings or even knife fights as small business owners and workers get fed up with thieves and now have an apathetic police that won't protect them. Those in high volume areas like food stands at train stations will feel the brunt of this, meanwhile I suppose the kinds of restaurants an Italian judge dines at won't even notice. If Italy wants to expand its welfare state benefits, then it should do that through its legislature via taxation, not via judiciary decree attacking its poorest workers. If the Italian poor can't find these socialized benefits then someone needs to ask by the welfare state is so inefficient and find a way to fix that.

More than likely the unintended consequences will be chasing out 'poor looking' people from various shops as retailers fear legal theft. Now the poorest won't be able to buy things they need and they won't have the resources to fight this discrimination via a lawsuit. On top of that, there's no Hollywood style theft where you just steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, incentivizing snatching expensive food to be sold on the black market, and other issues.

Its obvious no one thought this through. What if a hungry person decided to smash up a €5,000 vending machine to get a sandwich or a coffee? Does the Italian government pay for the repairs? I imagine it won't. This is a bad ruling for Italian small business.

emodendroket9• 10 years ago

You do not have a basic biological need for money, actually.

swayvil4• 10 years ago

actually you do

lorenzhs7• 10 years ago

I don't think anyone is saying poor people should be allowed to rob banks or mug people. The article is about stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger.

notsotrue14• 10 years ago

You may not, but you don't live in Canada. Here in Canada, food is secondary to shelter. If you have the energy to steal, you won't die today. However, if you have no shelter in -40, you're dead. You can't steal shelter, but you can steal money to exchange for shelter. So, yea, you do have a basic biological need for money...

Avshalom3• 10 years ago

Murder is "not a crime" if self defense in most countries. And while we certainly have our debates about when it counts as self defense very few people seem to discount the notion entirely.

insulanian• 10 years ago

Is it possible to prove that one was hungry at the time of theft?

celticninja6• 10 years ago

Probably easier if all you are stealing is €5 worth of food.

swayvil4• 10 years ago

The assumption that people are lying unless proven otherwise is... well it just opens the door to a whole world of problems. It's also distasteful and ugly.

rhino3692• 10 years ago

That's sort of how many affirmative defenses are treated in many legal systems. It's up to you to prove you have an excuse, so to say.

celticninja6• 10 years ago

Seems reasonable. Not like he was nicking razor blades and booze just some necessities. Shame it had to go so far but hopefully it will prevent similar court action or arrests in future.

gedrap4• 10 years ago

So, if you are proved to be poor or hungry (whatever that means), does it give you a green light to steal? Maybe, let's say, steal 10 times a day from 10 different shops, and resell the goods for half the price and use the money for something else?

I mean that's a lovely headline and all, but in startups lingo, it doesn't scale.

sageikosa5• 10 years ago

Carrying capacity has no place in the calculation of the value of need.

celticninja6• 10 years ago

Sure if someone wants to go to that effort they could, but be honest those people are stealing right now, this isn't going to drive a whole new group of individuals to go and steal food. Its like that law in one of the South American countries that breaking out of jail itself is not a crime because of our desire to be free, in the same way stealing food in the face of hunger and starvation is just an expression of our instinct to survive.

VLM3• 10 years ago

There are four slippery slope arguments

1) Originally the law exists so if you cut your finger you won't go to jail for "stealing" a bandaid from the first aid cabinet or other weird trivialities. I had a bad reaction to some taco bell and "stole" an entire roll of toilet paper in the bathroom by flushing it. For unusual situations not as a way of life to eat three meals a day.

2) Another intent is very short term survival. So if you are about to collapse in a low blood sugar diabetic coma, if you realize it and immediately slam a corn syrup soda, even if you can't pay for the soda its not a crime, because the overall cost to society of a collapsed or dead person in the aisle enormously exceeds the cost of a mere can of soda. But this dude paid for some needed food and snuck out with more food for later in his pocket. If his defense was he was feeling faint and ate it right there in the aisle as a sudden unpredictable (LOL) medical need, and said he was sorry but no wallet, that would be a realistic application of the law, but filling one's pockets for later use is pretty slippery slope.

3) The financial impact of the trial exceeds the cost of the crime by many magnitudes, and all the cost comes from the taxpayer. Thats fine when its something obscure like "policeman takes bicycle to chase down a criminal" or "earthquake hits store and customer steals bandages to save lives until the EMTs arrive". I stole a hundredth of a penny of water from the public water fountain because I was thirsty. However the financial impact of having to feed every homeless person is going to be a bit high and it makes no sense not to prosecute a common crime like food theft.

4) Proportionate punishment is an issue. So for me jail would be a ridiculous punishment for a couple pieces of food, but for a homeless dude, its like an all inclusive vacation.

Edited to add 5

5) Police punishment as non-judicial punishment. Sure the judge won't convict, but stealing a pack of chips means the cops will throw you in jail for a couple days. Much like political protesting is not illegal and you won't get a conviction for it, but the cops WILL let you cool your heels in jail for hours/days. Likewise maybe the appropriate legal level of punishment for stealing a cookie is sitting in jail and explaining yourself to a judge who lets you walk. Its not a crime you can be convicted of, but its not exactly government encouraged either. This is a likely outcome of the whole situation. There are parts of the country that "enforce" marijuana laws in a similar manner, or at least there used to be.

celticninja6• 10 years ago

Lots of words and very little content.

x5n1• 10 years ago

Should probably say starving. I am always hungry.

sp3325• 10 years ago

It's a loose translation. A better one from the body of the article is "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment".

moron4hire• 10 years ago

The Judeo-Christian Bible calls this "gleaning". From what I understand, it was considered an essential part of the social safety net and farmers who erected fences to keep truly needful gleaners out were considered sinful.

emodendroket9• 10 years ago

That's not really what "gleaning" is. "Gleaning" is picking up the little leftover bits of grain after the reaping is done. The Old Testament does command farmers to leave behind the bits for gleaning and permit gleaning on the part of the poor, however, and it is clearly intended as a sort of premodern welfare system.

danielvf• 10 years ago

Gleaning was more about allowing the poor to have inefficient access to the raw materials that with hard work could be made into food. Taking prepared food from a merchant would have still been a crime.

For example "People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry, but if he is caught, he will pay esevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house."

emodendroket9• 10 years ago

I'm not sure that the ancient Israelites had many places you could go get "prepared food," but the Bible also says you should leave behind grapes for the poor which clearly do not need preparation.

e: Previously I claimed that olives don't need preparation which is false. Sorry.

duncanawoods• 10 years ago

I have wondered whether this applies to the ethics of piracy too.

For example, on release of a blockbuster movie - the distributor will do blanket advertising saturating every channel trying to manufacture a demand - tv, internet, sides of buses, roadside-hoardings, in taxis, talk shows, newspaper native ads etc. You just can't escape even in your own home eating your breakfast cereal when the box is smeared with adverts.

If a demand has been manufactured by a catastrophic pollution of our environment, I can't blame anyone for satisfying it without paying the maker. They didn't really have a choice.

golergka2• 10 years ago

They didn't really have a choice.

Only if they have IQ below the level which is considered minimum to be responsible for your actions.

nkrisc3• 10 years ago

That's absurd. Being subject to incessant advertising doesn't make you need a movie or beyond responsibility for your own actions.

No one is saying this guy isn't responsible for stealing food, the court is saying he ought not to be punished for it given his particular circumstances.

EDIT: I'll concede this may not apply to toddlers.

sp3325• 10 years ago

It's true that the *AA's create a lot of perverse incentives, but I don't think it's that complex. If people can get what they want legally they generally will. If they can't, they are more likely to get it illegally anyway. I don't think the desire for a piece of content has to get very high before people are willing to pirate it.

lumberjack• 10 years ago

In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine.

The first judge clearly messed up. A suspended sentence would have been ideal in this case.

lazarus101• 10 years ago

6 months in jail means free food for 6 months!

zaroth• 10 years ago

And the most expensive way possible to feed someone too.

kbart2• 10 years ago

I'm interested, what test do they perform to check if a person in question was hungry?/s Still, it's a bad precedence imho, so according to such logic, a homeless person could also invade my home and sleep in my bed, because he can't afford his own.

Intermernet2• 10 years ago

according to such logic, a homeless person could also invade my home and sleep in my bed, because he can't afford his own.

Not quite, a homeless person could invade an empty home and sleep in that bed. This is done all the time, and is somewhat covered by squatter's rights. It's currently assumed that greater than 15% of the world's population are squatters. [1]

Squatting is the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land–or a building, usually residential–that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have lawful permission to use.

Author Robert Neuwirth suggested in 2004 that there were one billion squatters globally. He forecasts there will be two billion by 2030 and three billion by 2050.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

kbart2• 10 years ago

What you've described is more akin to gathering discarded food in the back of supermarkets and restaurants, not taking it (stealing) from the rightful owner.

hartpuff3• 10 years ago

I'm not seeing the same logic you are. If someone is hungry (or pretending to be), why would they want to break into your home and sleep in your bed, rather than steal food?

eplanit• 10 years ago

His logical construction is solid: If it's okay to steal food when hungry, then it's okay to steal shelter when homeless (right?). The construction demonstrates how such logic, when generalized even a little, reveals its absurdity.

deepnet• 10 years ago

France has long had a similar leniency for stealing bread.

emodendroket9• 10 years ago

A sort of Jean Valjean rule, if you will.

e: That's probably exactly what you meant. Whoops.

kh2ouija• 10 years ago

Reminds me of how trying to escape from prison is not illegal in certain countries.

vtail• 10 years ago

Can you say in which countries?

LaurentVB• 10 years ago

In Belgium it isn't. What is often the case, though, is that you commit other crimes while escaping prison (stealing government property, violence or threats on guards, etc.) for which you're accountable.

HarryHirsch• 10 years ago

Civilized countries. Germany, for example.

The law argues that one cannot punish a person for loving freedom, even though the same law has put him behind bars.

lorenzhs7• 10 years ago

Germany, for example. Any crimes you commit (damage to the prison, theft of inmate clothing, ...) while fleeing will be added to your sentence if caught, though

pcr0• 10 years ago

So far, I can think of Germany and Mexico.

janfoeh• 10 years ago

The act of escape itself is legal in Germany. Other acts committed during escape, such as destruction of property are of course not, so in practice it is probably rare for a caught escapee not to receive additional punishment.

halomru2• 10 years ago

From memory I think Germany is one of those countries.

It's not what some people imagine, though: when you break out of jail you will still be wanted for your original crime, and when caught have to continue your sentence. And while the act of breaking out isn't punishable by itself, theft, property damage, assault etc committed in order to break out is still punishable.

The human desire to be free is acknowledged and not punished, but that doesn't interfere with the punishment of crimes.

nkrisc3• 10 years ago

I don't know if that's quite the same though. Assuming a just legal system (maybe that's a stretch) one is in jail as a consequence for their own actions. Therefore being in jail is of their own doing and the right thing to do is to accept their punishment for their actions. Being poor is not always a consequence of one's own actions or always within one's control.

takno2• 10 years ago

Logically I can't see why trying to escape from prison would be an offence in itself anyway. If somebody successfully did it they wouldn't have undertaken the punishment for the original crime though, so you'd send them back to prison for that, and wouldn't give them any time off for good behaviour

golergka2• 10 years ago

It took them four years to reach a conviction on a most trivial of cases, that was then appealed even later?

emodendroket9• 10 years ago

It is almost as though attempting to prosecute a homeless man who stole cheese and a couple sausages is not a wise use of the state's resources.

hanief• 10 years ago

Reminds me of the third islamic caliph, Omar ibn Khattab, who suspend punishment for thief on famine. [1] I wonder if there is another legal presedence beside it.

[1]https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ZRqe3iPwsTkC&pg=PA36&lpg...

return0• 10 years ago

Precedence of people not cutting off other people's hands for stealing? lots.

garyrob• 10 years ago

It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?

delecti2• 10 years ago

Also, surely the store from which he stole is still victimized by the theft. Is every supermarket now de facto required to set up small food pantries for the poor to protect themselves from theft?

rootlocus4• 10 years ago

Considering the massive amounts of food that gets thrown away even before the expiration date, I'm amazed this is even an issue. There was an entire episode of "Last Week Tonight" on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY

tveita• 10 years ago

Stores in an area could work together to supply a food bank?

Or even petition the government to set one up paid by their taxes.

sbuttgereit• 10 years ago

Nevermind the fact that in poorer areas, the likelihood of "justifiable theft" under this doctrine, one would have to imagine, is greater.

Consumption in the absence of real production is not sustainable.

At some point the reduction in margins means the shop worker/repairman/etc that would be paid for his work no longer can be supported/afforded, adding to the poor. At some point shop owners, current and would be, would choose not to do business in then-marginal districts of town: the underserved and marginally poor would be more likely to be further underserved and see the balance tip towards poverty.

All things being equal, there is nothing wrong with compassion. But there are other, better ways. This ruling is neither compassionate, moral, nor ultimately effective. When one considers the unseen consequences of this sort of thinking, along with the abandonment of a legitimate purpose of government, in this myopic ruling, one can only marvel at the direction of Italian society.

peterwwillis6• 10 years ago

No, it's just no longer a crime - IF you were hungry. You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food. The shop can decide to let the thief have the food, or take it away from them, or call the cops.

Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets. It's calculated into the cost of doing business. Back when I was a teenager working in a supermarket, one store claimed 15% of its revenue was lost to theft every year. (Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well)

I doubt they'll just let people ransack their stories, but they may decide to be more lenient in terms of calling the cops when they catch them.

Fun anecdote: Working in front of the store, you would sometimes notice people trying to pull scams. The best scam I ever witnessed was over chicken nuggets. There was one guy finishing paying for some food, one cashier, and me bagging the food. Right as this first guy was paying for his food, another came up right behind me and barked in my ear that he couldn't find something in the frozen food aisle. I turned and tried to explain where to find his item. When I turned back around, the last item for the current customer - a box of frozen chicken nuggets - had.... disappeared. Just gone off the counter. The customer was still there, though, and the cashier hadn't seen anything. So we had to get him a new item. It wasn't until he and the distracting guy left that we realized they were working together.

talmand10• 10 years ago

> Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well)

I'm sure their prices could have been lower if they didn't have up to 15% shrinkage as well.

drzaiusapelord4• 10 years ago

You'll still get arrested and put through a lengthy trial process if you're caught stealing food.

Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machine that costs 5,000 euros. Your feel good ruling told all the drug addicts they could smash it for the snacks inside. You arrest them and whether or not you convict them doesn't matter to me because I'm out 5,000 euros now and the government isn't going to reimburse me. I can't sue them because they have no assets.

So yes, there are social consequences here that are not address by the court system.

dragonwriter12• 10 years ago

Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets.

And, having known several people who worked in loss prevention, it is well-established that the lion's share of that theft -- both of cash and goods -- is by employees.

umanwizard4• 10 years ago

In practice I imagine it will result in homeless (or generally poor-looking) people being routinely banned from stores in Italy.

sageikosa5• 10 years ago

Then breaking and entering will be made legal, if its for the purpose of procuring badly needed nourishment.

distances3• 10 years ago

I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers.

fla• 10 years ago

IMO, "not a crime" doesn't mean it isn't reprehensible. The article doesn't go into details unfortunately.

elcapitan• 10 years ago

I think there is a fundamental difference between different law systems - I'm assuming Italy is roman-style civil law, while you are probably expecting Anglo-Saxon style common law. This means that that case is not setting a precedent, it is merely ruling that the particular case is not going to be penalized.

kome3• 10 years ago

ditto!

riffraff• 10 years ago

this is correct, but the italian Court of Cassation (involved in this case) rulings do have extra weight compared to other courts, as it's the last resort court and a unique one in the country, so it's considered to have a special function in guaranteeing uniform rulings.

WhoBeI• 10 years ago

It's very common to mix them up. We use civil law in Sweden but due to the influence of US movies and TV series it's common, in my experience, for people to think about laws in a US fashion.

Wikipedia has a good article [1] with a map showing the different legal systems in use throughout the world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems

J-dawg3• 10 years ago

It could work without causing chaos. We already accept that some special circumstances can make you innocent of a crime (e.g. killing in self-defence).

But if you stab someone in self-defence you can still expect to be arrested and possibly put on trial. The onus is on you to prove you did it in self-defence.

Surely this could be treated the same? It doesn't mean that stealing food has been decriminalised. You'll still be arrested if caught, and you have to prove you were truly desperate.

The risk of this approach, I fear, is that it could be exploited by clever lawyers as a loophole for people who aren't really all that poor. The truly poor won't be able to afford a lawyer.

zardo2• 10 years ago

Surely this could be treated the same? It doesn't mean that stealing food has been decriminalised. You'll still be arrested if caught, and you have to prove you were truly desperate.

But what a collosal waste of resources. What does a trial cost the state? It would probably be cheaper to just... feed the hungry people.

DonaldFisk2• 10 years ago

IANAL, but I thought that the onus was on the prosecution to prove you were guilty as charged, i.e. didn't stab them in self-defence (by proving you stabbed for some other reason, presumably). Similarly, the prosecution would have to prove you weren't truly desperate if up before the magistrates for stealing food.

It might be different in Italy, though.

vidarh15• 10 years ago

The risk of this approach, I fear, is that it could be exploited by clever lawyers as a loophole for people who aren't really all that poor. The truly poor won't be able to afford a lawyer.

How in the world would that work? The amount stolen would have to be only sufficient satisfy your hunger, and presumably they would need to not have obvious other means. Such as funds for a lawyer.

DrJokepu• 10 years ago

I'm not very familiar with Italian law, but my understanding is that Italian legal system is based on civil law and hence rulings in legal cases are normally not binding precedents, that is, another judge in another case is free to rule differently. Only the Parliament has legislative authority.

jbmorgado• 10 years ago

Well, perhaps you can see the problem from the other way: From now on is up to the government and ultimately to the society to make sure nobody is hungry.

I mean, the production means are far more than enough to accomplish that and in the western world, only a society where wealth distribution is deeply unbalanced can have people going hungry, so that's the problem we need to address.

rootlocus4• 10 years ago

  > the production means are far more than enough to accomplish that

This is what baffles me: we have enough resources for everybody, but we somehow manage to justify how some people deserve luxury and excess, while others die on the streets. We're not talking about Comunism here, but the basic needs to survive.

hudell• 10 years ago

It's the same situation in Brazil. I don't know if it's a law or a company rule of most big markets, but they simply added a few pennies to the price of the products as a form of insurance, then they don't call the police when they find someone stealing low amounts of food. It doesn't happen very often (the clerk that told me about this year ago had said it was the first time it happened in his shift)

nkrisc3• 10 years ago

A reasonable stance of compassion. It's a reprieve from the more common misanthropic Randian attitudes towards the poor. Be nice to the poor, there are so many things beyond our control that could make any of us poor tomorrow.

_Adam• 10 years ago

The only "Randian attitude" towards the poor is that no one should be forced to help them. This case is mandating that shops help poor people regardless of whether or not they want. It's a clear violation of property rights.

Helping hungry people is a fine thing to do, as long as it's optional.

ctrlalt_g2• 10 years ago

The state isn't mandating anything. Store owners can physically prevent people from stealing their wares if they wanted to.

iamgopal2• 10 years ago

Reminds me of La miserables.

pc862• 10 years ago

Les Misérables

Edit: With appreciation to lorenzhs

lorenzhs7• 10 years ago

Well if you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right - it's "Les Misérables"

takno2• 10 years ago

Maybe OP was talking about a new show in development. It possibly follows the lives of the lawyers from LA Law who, having fallen on hard times, are forced to steal bread and break spontaneously into song to survive.

iamgopal2• 10 years ago

(I should have copy paste.) I have read it in Gujarati lang, that's why. (But would love to read original version someday...).

gedrap4• 10 years ago

It definitely makes a nice headline, it might work in this specific case. Damn it might even work in an utopian world where everyone is absolutely honest and has high moral standards.

But applied widely in real world, it's just won't work. There are too many people who would exploit such a system and cause chaos.

firimari• 10 years ago

Surely the real reason for this is that the judiciary doesn't want to give anyone a reason to write a new version of 'Les Miserables'

nxzero• 10 years ago

In theory, neither the store or those in need would want to deal with the hassle of theft being the way to deal with the ruling. My guess is stories would just start giving food to the hungry as needed, and then past the costs onto the customers.

Why would this not work?

sageikosa5• 10 years ago

One merely has to wonder whether a starving homeless man can be prosecuted for "stealing" from another starving homeless man? Do we need to judge who was more starving?

mbostleman• 10 years ago

Can a group of hungry people combine, like a union, and steal the contents of a food warehouse or grocery distribution center?

co_dh• 10 years ago

I'm glad that stealing beer is still a crime :)

Dotnaught• 10 years ago

But if the food is locked away, it's presumably still a crime to damage property and/or bypass a lock to obtain the food. So this interpretation of the law creates an incentive for grocers to keep food out of reach.

And thirst being even more basic than hunger, is it excusable to steal beer when desperately dehydrated or just bottled water?

If food is deemed an inalienable right, then a tax to feed the hungry seems like a better way to avoid legal inconsistency.

talmand10• 10 years ago

Your beer versus water question works for food as well. Will there be difference of opinion by the law if the starving man steals bread versus steak?

The tax, or charity for that matter, to feed the poor is something that works quite well in many areas of the world, even in the evil capitalistic systems.

krzrak3• 10 years ago

Do you need to be hungry and poor, or just hungry? If latter - you can just help yourself in the supermarket whenever you wish?

lorenzhs7• 10 years ago

To quote the article, the court ruled the way it did because he took those things "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment". Having a craving in the supermarket is not the same thing.

krzrak3• 10 years ago

One doesn't need to be poor to experience "immediate and essential need for nourishment". I.e. you couldn't have time to eat breakfast, and you forgot to take your wallet with you.

adevendra232• 10 years ago

Thnking what it feels like to be hungry for 3 days and no money to buy food.

kome3• 10 years ago

In other news, sky is blue and water is wet. From the Italian criminal code:

Criminal Code, article 54 – State of necessity: “A person is not punishable for having committed an act that he was forced to do in order to save himself or others from an existing risk of severe harm, a risk not voluntarily caused by him, nor otherwise avoidable, always provided that the act is proportional to the risk”.

DanBC• 10 years ago

But this is from the BBC, and in Britain we routinely prosecute (sometimes privately) people who shoplift food.

There are cases of homeless people who stole a pint of milk from a doorstep, and who left some money, being prosecuted for theft.

kome3• 10 years ago

Oh that's why anglophone media is so thrilled.

DarkContinent• 10 years ago

Who decides if a person is truly starving and homeless, or just acting it to get free food?

Avshalom3• 10 years ago

The same people that normally decide if a person has committed a crime in Italy Judge/Jury/Whatever?

akrigline• 10 years ago

The way the judges worded this decision makes it a lot less of a slippery slope. This was only accepted because it was an "Immediate and essential need for nourishment." I expect that if more people started stealing, they'd be put through a court process to prove that they were in this condition.

What this doesn't do is fix the problem though, it just recognizes a symptom. Why are these people forced to resort to stealing?

CajunAlexTrebec2• 10 years ago

Italy is falling apart, financially speaking. The people of Italy are suffering as a result.

Nearly 50% of bank loans are non-performing (in default). The EBC is conducting a stealth bailout via Target2. Just look at the major Italian bank stocks. They are trading at deep, deep discounts. Maybe the market knows something the EBC and others don't want to admit?

c0nducktr3• 10 years ago

People are homeless and go hungry in all countries. This isn't something that only happens in Italy. It's a worldwide issue.

Camillo• 10 years ago

The guy was Hungarian.

rhino3692• 10 years ago

That makes sense morally but are there actually starving people in first world nations? There are food banks, shelters, and churches that provide food, at least in America.

scurvy3• 10 years ago

Europeans (DHH for example) constantly brag about what great social safety nets the European countries provide for their people, and that US style charities are a waste. Implying charity money should be given to the government as tax money and let the state do their work instead.

Italy has just admitted that it can't take care of its citizens' basic needs. I'm not saying it's time to eat crow, but I am saying it's time to realize that both systems have flaws and there's no reason to get righteous about one approach over another.

megalodon2• 10 years ago

What the what? Your generalizations are way out of line. You can argue about or criticize the ruling but don't use it out of context to push your own agenda.

scurvy3• 10 years ago

I don't have an agenda, that's my point. I'm saying it's time for certain people to stop pushing theirs.

OK, I have an anti-agenda agenda.

toopok4k3• 10 years ago

You draw a bit too many conclusions here.

Maybe he was drunk or slept during the food lines, or he just didn't give a fuck that day? Poor people can decide not to receive any help they are provided. It's not like we can throw them into a prison for being poor.

scurvy3• 10 years ago

So neither system can take care of all the people all the time? That was my point. It's time to stop pontificating that one approach is the only approach.

googletazer• 10 years ago

Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian background.

Somewhat doubtful that Mr Ostriakov is Italian, or from an EU member country. Very likely that Mr. Ostriakov had to illegally go to Italy to find work after Biden & co decided it was time to "liberate" Ukraine. Just a theory.

orkoden• 10 years ago

As the bible says http://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/Deuteronomy23%2C25

If you go into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your bag. 25 If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.

Stealing food is okay sometimes. There's even a word in German for it Mundraub.

j_s• 10 years ago

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

Proverbs 6:30-31

draugadrotten• 10 years ago

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."" -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm

vidarh15• 10 years ago

"unwilling"

saosebastiao• 10 years ago

If you're gonna force business owners to give to the poor, why not do it through an established and equitable mechanism like taxation/redistribution, instead of subjecting select types of business owners to the whims of a mostly subjective claim? Why force the burden on a bakery but not a tailor or a chocolatier?

I can't help but be concerned about this growing trend of governments slowly pushing off the burden of general welfare onto businesses. You see it in the US with health care being the responsibility of the employer, affordable housing mandates on real estate developers, and minimum wage increases in expensive areas. All of these "solutions" to poverty have huge unintended consequences, even if they partially address the problem. The problem of poverty isn't solved by forcing businesses to be compassionate, it is solved by governments doing their fucking job and taxing everybody equitably to do so.

talmand10• 10 years ago

Or even better, implement the system that is starting to decent success in many areas; mandate that stores hand over still edible foods they would normally throw away due to standard business practices.

KKKKkkkk1• 10 years ago

Actually, when you think of it, maybe it's better to legalize stealing than establishing a government agency in charge of equitable redistribution. I would imagine stealing would work more efficiently and more fairly. (You see a problem and you say: Hey, let's establish a government agency to solve that problem. Now you have two problems.)

aninhumer3• 10 years ago

Am I missing some sarcasm here?

Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.

gozur88• 10 years ago

What happens in countries where the government doesn't or can't protect property rights is people with property protect their own rights. Sometimes very zealously.

It's not hard to find videos on the web where a mob of shopkeepers beat the crap out of (or even shooting) someone caught shoplifting. We don't have cops to protect us from criminals. We have cops to protect people accused of crime from summary judgement.

igotsideas• 10 years ago

I see the good intention but I don't see it working out well for businesses. Maybe it will work in Italy? I know it would be a $h!t show here in Seattle.

weinzierl• 10 years ago

Until 1975 German law had a Mundraub [1] (theft for the mouth) clause (§ 248a Abs. 2 StGB a.F.). It was concerned with the theft of small amounts of food for immediate consumption, like eating an apple from your neighbor's garden.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundraub

adevendra232• 10 years ago

I can't imagine what is feels like to be hungry for few days and no money to buy food. May be in that state some human minds ignore morals, pride, social and legal concequnces of stealing food.

ctrlalt_g2• 10 years ago

A few days is nothing. Fasting for a few days actually feels great. Weeks and months of being constantly hungry, though, probably feels awful.

stronglikedan2• 10 years ago

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for the theft. Ask me for help, and I'm there, but please don't steal from me and think that it's okay. I am, however, open to enlightenment.

rootlocus4• 10 years ago

Beggars ask for help in the streets, but I personally can't help each and every one of them. You may be sympathetic, but how is the homeless man supposed to find you when he needs your help?

sethhochberg• 10 years ago

In theory that is the whole point of taxpayer funded support programs... we can't all be there, but we do all pay taxes for the specific purpose of having a better society (including things like food banks, soup kitchens, etc for people in need).

nowprovision• 10 years ago

I bet you've been pretty privileged in grand scheme of things, university, regular jobs, maybe the lowest point has been backpacking etc... Parent have at least one car, yawn yawn yawn.. No one is stealing from you, they are stealing from a supermarket. Privileged people always seem to think in black and white, theft is theft never an excuse blah blah, quite often making the cliche mistake of associating morality with legality.. I hope one day you don't need to learn this ain't always correlated..

hueving2• 10 years ago

Discursive ad hominem, yawn. Discuss the implications of theft being okay if you are hungry, not the background of the person who suggested they disagree with that notion.

ixtli2• 10 years ago

I think the reason why people have a hard time understanding what you're saying is because unless you've experienced _systemic_ difficulty in your life it's very hard to differentiate it from _personal_ difficulty. Put in a less rigorous way, if you've never truly had to fight against a system that seems constructed to see you fail it would be hard to understand how this is different from, and much worse than, difficulty that stems from smaller, instantaneous issues that present roadblocks or troubles in your life.

protomyth10• 10 years ago

I've not been privileged all my life. I have a dislike for fish because of some of things and situations we were in.

It is never, ever ok to steal. Stealing from a supermarket is stealing from a person or people. Just because you cannot name who is affected doesn't mean it isn't people. It is black and white. The morality and legality are in alignment in this regard. This whole "shades of grey" leads to the blackness that destroys people and civilizations.

The whole point of government social programs is to provide for survival. There are organizations that provide and places to go.

jerf2• 10 years ago

History has a lot to say on this topic. I don't think it supports the thesis that people should just be allowed to steal because Privilege. Society is much better off with some people helping the poor and law and order being maintained. It's rather a black-and-white view to think we must choose only one or the other.

If you want to feel moral, go feed a poor person today. You'll feel much better. Don't assault the basic pillars of the civil society that is what has left you rich enough to be able to afford that without a second thought for a quick hit on the virtue pipe.

(Preempting one of the lines of attack I can forsee coming here, the crime is also minor and the penalty should be minor correspondingly. I would happily support some sort of very compassionate enforcement; perhaps a sentence of a few days' service at a soup kitchen which will also feed him or something. But there is still an important difference between enforcing the law even in this minor way, and declaring that certain people lack Privilege and therefore, ironically, have the privilege of being above the law, which is the sort of caustic poison that can dissolve civil society entirely.)

eveningcoffee5• 10 years ago

In my youth I would have starved unless we did not have a bag of potatos from our friends who lived on the countryside for our help during the harvest. We did not have a car.

Am I not privileged enough to have an opinion that theft, as such, should not be tolerated?

I still think that we should collectively help people who are in risk of starvation.

dragonwriter12• 10 years ago

Other than the fact that the parent post is all discursive ad hominem (as pointed out in another reply), its also extremely presumptive and grounded in rather false premises. Often, people that have been through hard times have the most black and white view of what is morally right in such times, and cling to them quite strongly as an important part of their identity, often one which helped psychologically in getting through hard times.

Black and white thinking can, sure, be a result of privilege, but it can also be a product of its absence. Aside from being fallacious to attack a speaker for your presumption of what in their background might be the motivation for their ideas rather than addressing the ideas themselves, you'll also quite often be wrong on that presumption.

curious_fella1• 10 years ago

No one is stealing from you, they are stealing from a supermarket

Yes, well they're stealing from someone, aren't they? But of course, it's ok if someone steals from the heartless grocery store owner, isn't it? I feel as if you would have a different opinion if anybody was allowed to walk into your house without your permission and ransack your fridge (and anything else they felt that they "need").

The moral problem with theft isn't that it is illegal. The problem is that one person expended their own personal resources to create the good. The person has spent their own time, money, and/or intelligence to create some good that now has value. The thief, who has expended zero effort to create nothing, takes the fruit of the producer's labor for no work, on the basis of his "need". What kind of society does this produce, where you can take things from others solely on your basis of need?

You seem to be making the cliche mistake of associating morality with need. I hope one day you don't need to learn this isn't always correlated...

luso_brazilian• 10 years ago

Some context from the article:

Judges overturned a theft conviction against Roman Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth €4.07 (£3; $4.50) from a supermarket.
Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian background, had taken the food "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment", the court of cassation decided.
Therefore it was not a crime, it said.

(...)

In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine.

Italian judicial system "does not try anybody by a jury of peers: everyone is judged by professional judges or by a panel of judges" [1]. Thus, the compassion reserved to the jury of peers (in the form of Jury Nullification) in systems like the american one would be absent from the Italian one if not for actions like the one by this judge.

Not going to enter in the merit of the cause itself (as it's very subjective and personal experience can affect the judgement) but I agree that the judicial system can and must apply discretion in its judgements.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Proce...

ergo14• 10 years ago

That makes no sense for me.

It IS a crime, however one that court could rule to not punish the convicted. At least that is how it would probably work in my country.

dimino2• 10 years ago

Agreed -- I think we should, as neediness increases, lower the penalties per a judge's discretion, but I don't think we should ever completely eliminate the criminal aspect of theft.

There is room in a justice system to convict a person of a crime without punishing that person in any meaningful way.

vidarh15• 10 years ago

A conviction is in itself substantial punishment most places.

dragonwriter12• 10 years ago

Agreed -- I think we should, as neediness increases, lower the penalties per a judge's discretion, but I don't think we should ever completely eliminate the criminal aspect of theft.

We certainly complete eliminate the criminality of intentional homicide when there is sufficient need. Seems to me, that the case for doing so for mere theft of chattels is much stronger. (Also, note that this is separate from the issue of whether or not conversion of chattels ought always to be a tort creating a debt for compensation from the taker to the one deprived, which should be resolved through whatever system a jurisdiction has for the resolution of debts and which may requiring repayment when the taker is capable, with interest, unless the debt is qualified for discharge, e.g., through bankruptcy or similar proceedings. But that's a different issue than criminality.)

eveningcoffee5• 10 years ago

I think you are right!

We should provide aid for people who are in danger of starvation, but it does not give anybody right to steal from fellow human.

I have a personal experience with possible abuse.

I saw a man, probably a foreign (so he is probably not supposed to be familiar with local aid system), with a sign that he needs money for food because he is starving and he indeed did not look alright.

After considering the situation (well, to be honest he can be pretending), I decided to give the man 10 euros because if he really is starving, he should not stay there to collect small coins, but also as a test, such that he could be given further directions when he really is in need.

So, he took the money, hid it and continued his act.

mbillie1• 10 years ago

As though 10 euros is enough to satisfy his hunger in perpetuity? Do you quit your job and stop working when you have 10 euros in the bank, or do you put it away and try to accumulate more? This "anecdote" is pretty short-sighted.

stronglikedan2• 10 years ago

I usually don't have cash, but if someone comes up to me in a parking lot of a store, I offer to take them in and purchase food for them on my credit card. They sometimes accept the offer, but the majority don't.

coldtea3• 10 years ago

After considering the situation (well, to be honest he can be pretending), I decided to give the man 10 euros because if he really is starving, he should not stay there to collect small coins, but also as a test, such that he could be given further directions when he really is in need.

Not much experience with being poor/homeless, have we?

For those not faking it (which can happen too), a "starving" sign doesn't mean "I'm literally starving right now, I just need a few dollars for a burger and I'll be on my way".

It means I can't support myself, I'm dead-poor, and probably homeless, and can use all the money thrown at me to get by for a few days.

ino• 10 years ago

When you're starving and alone, you're not the same person. You can feel the civility, bon-ton and good education vanishing, you don't even think about it. People will give you food if they see you in this state. If you can't get it any other way, you will steal.

Fuxy• 10 years ago

Survival and civility are not compatible. Until you have been forced to the brink of dying from starvation you will not understand.

It's quite simple when you think about it would you rather die in the streets from lack of food or go into a supermarket and take some to live another day hell even if you get caught you go to prison where you get fed.

There's no point in punishing these people the punishment is actually better then their current situation and any fines etc that you give them they will never be able to pay anyway all that does it prevent them from improving their situation since whenever they will start recovering a bit the debt collectors will show up to knock them down.

Besides being a cruel and unusual punishment for someone trying to better their lives it's not good for the economy either.

jemfinch• 10 years ago

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man.

The Catholic Church would agree: stealing is intrinsically evil, and thus wrong always and everywhere. The way they handle situations like this is by defining "stealing when starving" as "not stealing at all, but reappropriating things according to God's design for them." They call this the "universal destination of goods":

§2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

In other words, the right to private property does not trump the right to life.

estefan2• 10 years ago

The Catholic Church...

are in no position to lecture anyone on morals. Read "The God Delusion" if this isn't abundantly apparent to you from studying history and/or reading the news.

J-dawg3• 10 years ago

I'm not generally a fan of the Catholic Church, but this sounds wonderfully sensible.

Udik• 10 years ago

The Catholic Church would agree

Quite the opposite, I'd say. Italy is a catholic country, and it is, I think, common opinion that the very forgiving Italian attitude is due to it. Protestantism and Calvinism in particular are much more strict in considering everybody responsible for their actions. Catholics can always go the the nearest priest, confess their sins and be immediately absolved from them. They don't have to deal with their conscience.

philh• 10 years ago

This seems pretty mealy-mouthed. They don't want to give up "stealing is always wrong", and they don't want to give up "stealing to survive is okay", so they redefine the word "stealing". They're basically saying "stealing is wrong, and if it's not wrong, it's not stealing".

(They clearly do not agree with user stronglikedan.)

refal• 10 years ago

Hm, I dimly remembered what was called "Mundraub" in Germany, so I looked it up and interestingly, the German wikipedia entry mentions 5th book Moses, 23,25 (probably should be 23,24?) as an example of theft permitted if for immediate consumption (and perhaps in not too large quantities):

When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, thou mayst eat grapes thy bellyful at thine own pleasure: but thou shalt put none in thy bag.

pizza• 10 years ago

It is probably slightly less wrong to steal for food when starving than it is to withhold food from a starving fellow human.

steego7• 10 years ago

I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man.

  * Stealing something back
  * Stealing Hitler's secret plans
  * Stealing a portion of everybody's property/income, but providing vital protection, infrastructure and social services in return.
  * Stealing the heart of a girl from a guy who abuses her.
  * Stealing land from the commons to efficiently put it to work
  * Stealing land at market value to create a public works project that benefits the rest of society

In all seriousness, property rights are a critical component if you want to have a highly functioning economy, but as soon as you try to moralize the idea like it's a sacrosanct moral imperative (even at the expense of hungry people), you begin to sound like a foolish ideologue. The reason you sound like a foolish ideologue is because different moral ideas can very easily find themselves in opposition in common circumstances. If a situation forced you to choose between compassion and property rights (Maybe you're asked to steal a life saving medicine for someone else in dire need), which do you choose? Morally speaking, does property rights actually trump compassion, or do we let property rights trump compassion because that idea scales up to large societies better?

Property rights is a critically important idea that helps to serve a society. It's not an end unto its own, nor is it an unimpeachable moral imperative.

arethuza3• 10 years ago

These kinds of discussions always make me think of this story:

"A Scottish miner was walking home one night with a bunch of pheasants he had poached from a local landowner's estate when the landowner appeared and demanded that the miner hand over the pheasants. "Why should I hand them over to you?", asked the miner. "Because this is my land and those are my pheasants", the landowner replied.

"OK", said the miner, "where did you get the land from?" "From my father", said the landowner. "So where did your father get it?", the miner asked. The landowner replied: "From his father, who got it from his father, and so on. This land has belonged to my family for 500 years!"

"Well", the miner continued, "how did your family get it 500 years ago?" "Oh, they fought for it", answered the landowner. "OK then", the miner said, "take off your jacket and I'll fight you for it!"

NB I first read this in The Poor had No Lawyers - described as "how this country was stolen from its people":

http://www.andywightman.com/poor-had-no-lawyers

alecbaldwinlol• 10 years ago

Food is the private property of someone else. Pay for it or ask for it for free.

jeffdavis5• 10 years ago

I respectfully disagree. Property rights have a moral component independent of their economic value, similar to privacy rights.

Say someone says "let me search your car, what have you got to hide?" What argument can you use against it? The problem is that we've been manipulated to believe privacy has no real moral claim. In reality, you should be able to just say "it's private" and not feel compelled to provide further explanation.

It's not so different from being punched in the stomach. You aren't going to die, so what's the problem? You heal and everything is fine. So why won't you let me punch you in the stomach?

Theft is, similarly, a moral issue. If I make something, and someone takes it, I will feel bad. Much worse than if I had to sell it to pay taxes (even if I disagree with the tax policy).

KirinDave7• 10 years ago

The casual misogyny of this thread is impressively internalized.

tptacek• 10 years ago

There is no such thing as "property rights" to someone's heart. I get what you were doing rhetorically with the list, but it interacted badly with your explanatory paragraph.

objectivistbrit5• 10 years ago

This is why I'm an Objectivist - it's the only philosophy which gives a moral argument for property rights. (Most libertarian and free-market thinkers argue on pragmatic grounds, which means they are willing to compromise in the manner you describe).

Virtue of Selfishness puts the case succinctly:

"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."

"The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."

If a situation forced you to choose between compassion and property rights (Maybe you're asked to steal a life saving medicine for someone else in dire need), which do you choose?

The Objectivist answer is that sickness (like hunger) is not a sudden emergency but a predictable element of human life. Because of this, people invest in researching and manufacturing medicines, or studying to become doctors. They own the products of their labour, and are entitled to trade them (or donate them) as they see fit.

Many people would say they agree with this, but that there are some situations where rights should be compromised. The thing to understand is that rights are principles. In Objectivism, principles essentially encapsulate long-term pragmatism: principles are concepts you should always follow if you want good long-term results. (Rights, for example, encapsulate the principles to follow in the social realm). There will always be bad effects to violating principles, even if there appears to be a short-term gain.

If you say that one group of people (e.g., drug companies) should have their rights violated based on the needs of another group of people (e.g., sick and poor people), you establish the principle that anyone's rights can be violated for the needs of anyone else. You end up with different pressure groups and lobbyists pushing for government handouts and favourable legislation (i.e., the current situation). Linking back to the field of medicine, one practical outcome of the push to prevent "greedy drug companies hoarding medicine" has been that medical innovation has increasingly focused on things like viagra and plastic surgery, since if they develop life-saving innovations their intellectual property rights may well be violated.

coldtea3• 10 years ago

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man

So, never been homeless, poor and hungry, I presume?

Here's some Brecht for you:

You gentlemen who think you have a mission To purge us of the seven deadly sins Should first sort out the basic food position Then start your preaching, that's where it begins

You lot, who preach restraint and watch your waist as well Should learn, for once, the way the world is run However much you twist, or whatever lies that you tell Food is the first thing, morals follow on

pasquinelli2• 10 years ago

or billie holiday:

You've got to have something to eat and a little love in your life before you can hold still for any damn body's sermon on how to behave.

VLM3• 10 years ago

Financial taxation of all forms and levels. Expensive government regulations. Participating in a market with a government tolerated monopoly. Ownership of land under zoning board control (essentially all land). Licensing fees on titled registered personal property (cars, boats, homes). Benefiting from government services (national defense, police, maybe some day medical care, all the way down to welfare) without having first paid your share in taxes. Any service ever provided to disabled or handicapped people, unless they were really rich and paid a lot of taxes before the accident. Public education either in schools or libraries. The "public" airwaves. Theft, all of it.

By definition the only people playing the game, are those willing to hold their nose and wade into the cesspool anyway. Nobody currently in the cesspool can seriously convince anyone that they really thought they were wading into a Randian utopian swimming pool, they knew what they were getting into. Given that intentional acceptance of the situation they're voluntarily a part of, a bag of crackers isn't much of an additional theft. Deal with it.

What is likely to happen, is when I was a kid cigarette cartons were like $10 and out on shelves for anyone to steal, but why would anyone steal a $10 carton of cigs? Now they're like $80 per carton and locked up in closets until after payment is made. So there will be changes in supermarket operations. Oh well, disruption happens.

pasquinelli2• 10 years ago

would a person who's starving to death ever follow a law preventing them from taking food? i can't believe they would. in fact, i think if a person starved to death when they could've just walked into a grocery story and gotten plenty to eat must have had something deeply wrong with them. i don't even think it's a matter of choice. so such a law is at odds with reality.

and consider what the consequences are for the theft. maybe they get a fine. they won't pay it, of course, because they can't even pay for food. then the fines accumulate, which has no immediate effect on the thief and does nothing to stop them thieving, because if they can't pay for food then they can't pay a fine, no matter how much they owe. on the other had, they may, eventually, be thrown in prison for their crimes, where they'll get fed on the regular, which is practically encouragement to commit crimes. you could also kill them, but i feel that's problematic.

if you don't punish the thief at all then, in the off chance they have the chance to get back on their feet, they won't have a pile of debt keeping them down, they won't have a criminal record because they were starving, and they won't be dead.

bayesian_horse• 10 years ago

It's not explicitly stating that stealing while hungry is moral, it's just that modern justice systems are not set up for "deterring" people from survival. Nor would that be moral, either.

fldrcr• 10 years ago

It's not about morality or property rights... Of course the man stole food. And when he gets caught he will go to jail where he will have a cover over his head, resemblance of a bed, and free meals...

This is a case of economics. The courts are ruling they no longer want to foot the bill, send the homeless man back to the streets and let him beg, feed, and steal from the businesses.

js2• 10 years ago

Judiasm has the concept of ”Pikuach nefesh” which essentially commands that saving a life overrides almost all other considerations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

According to one source:

...The dominant view in Jewish law ... allows a person to steal or damage property of another to save his own life. Thus, one may break in to the house of another, or steal insulin if that was necessary to save his life. However, such a person must compensate the owner of the property.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/ch_stealsavelife.html

This source also says about American law:

The issue is not whether a person can steal or destroy property to save his life or the life of others since it is accepted in American law that such an action is permissible. The issue is whether such a person must compensate the owner if he did not create the danger. There are few cases directly on point but the weight of such cases conflict with the position taken by sections 197 and 263 of the Restatements. These cases and the doctrines of admiralty law support the contention that when neither the actor nor those whose lives are saved are legally at fault for placing themselves in the perilous position from which they can only be saved by destroying the property of another, they bear no legal liability for destroying that property.

kenko• 10 years ago

So compassionate and empathetic that you're concerned about people abusing this because of the subjectivity of hunger!

dllthomas• 10 years ago

My views on the matter are complicated and probably a bit conflicted. But for a cute presentation of a particular alternate viewpoint: http://blog.ninapaley.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/NA_Inve...

vidarh15• 10 years ago

I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for the theft.

I find it impossible to reconcile the two parts of this sentence. To me, there is nothing compassionate about even prosecuting a case like this.

I understand that people don't want to be stolen from. Of course not. Nobody wants that. We all want better alternatives.

But the world isn't perfect.

To me saying there is "never a reason to steal" is equivalent to saying you value property over someones life.

To me, that is cold and callous.

No, that does not mean I think it would be good for hordes of starving people to descent on shops. But if the alternative if starvation, then society has a problem. And theft is the smaller part of that problem.

panzagl• 10 years ago

Sooo, what if he was stealing from a soup kitchen? Or if the prosecutor could prove that there was food available through charity? Or that the man had money, but didn't want to spend it on food? Seems like an awfully broad precedent (assuming Italian courts work the same way as US courts).

ManlyElectronic• 10 years ago

May be the true reason of ruling is too many people, such as refuges, preferring live in jail. All they have to do is commit a petty crime occasionally.

zardo2• 10 years ago

This is why it's so important for your prison system to have a strong culture of sexual abuse. It allows the society to pretend they have a liberal justice system, while in reality all crimes are punished by rape.

ap3• 10 years ago

Jean Valjean?

kolinko• 10 years ago

"How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and stealing bread!" -- Anatole France

velox_io• 10 years ago

In a perfect world this may work (arguably it wouldn't be needed).

How does it address professional thieves who steal to order, now they can just argue that they were hungry. Frozen meat is often stolen as it has a high value to weight ratio.

Many small business owners are far from rich, can they steal from their suppliers to make up for the losses?

fiatmoney• 10 years ago

Similarly, under Italian law, beating the shit out of a bum isn't a crime if they're trying to steal your panino.

coffeeisgood• 10 years ago

I have been homeless and hungry while working a manual labor job. I applied for SNAP and should have been able to get benefits within three days. But I was told I'm not homeless. I couldn't prove I was homeless. Shelters have certain hours as do the food kitchens and I worked during those hours. I asked many people for help and food, but they said no. So when I felt especially desperate I stole a granola that cost about $2. The safety nets, so that people don't have to go hungry failed me.

gioele• 10 years ago

  Ci hanno insegnato la meraviglia
  verso la gente che ruba il pane
  ora sappiamo che è un delitto
  il non rubare quando si ha fame

Fabrizio De André (very influential singer-songwriter of the '60s-'70s)

  They taught us the wonder
  for the people who steal bread.
  Now we know that it’s a crime,
  not stealing when one is hungry.

(English translation from http://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?id=3225 )

xpaulbettsx• 10 years ago

Isn't this the country that "Ladri di Biciclette" came from?

tmptmp3• 10 years ago

from the article

>Stealing small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food did not constitute a crime, the court wrote.

What about the loss sustained by the owner? Or perhaps if the "not-so-rich clerk" at the supermarket was in charge of the goods and had to pay for the losses? Whose going to give that "not-so-rich clerk" the lost money?

Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food" then what?

I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy based society.

pyrale2• 10 years ago

Maybe we can care about this problem the day it actually happens, much like we would do if we were coding ?

tmptmp3• 10 years ago

The problem has already occurred, at least for the owner who lost the goods.

vidarh15• 10 years ago

I mean, such "populist" rulings are ultimately antithetical to democracy based society.

I find that an utterly ludicrous claim given that the court was applying the law, and that parliament is free to change the law if they believe it is being misinterpreted.

Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would.

Tomorrow if a thousand "hungry" people stole "small quantities of food to satisfy a vital need for food" then what?

Then society would need to decide whether to deal with that by tightening up this law, or find other ways of treating the poor with some degree of dignity.

Consider such laws a recognition that life has greater value than property, and an incentive to ensure society keeps that in mind when deciding how to structure itself.

tmptmp3• 10 years ago

>"life has greater value than property"...

This I agree. In fact, I am of the strong opinion that there should be very hard limits set on the ownership of certain types of properties (e.g. land, water, food). No one should be allowed to own any of such properties beyond a certain limit. [1] But once a person who owns whatever is allowed by the laws, then the law should protect the ownership of that person of that property and in case any person (needy or not-so-needy) steals such a property of other person, the law must not then take a populist u-turn to tell us grandiose sounding principles like "life has greater value than property". If the judge wants to show he/she is so "humane", he/she should pay for the loss of the owner and allow the "needy" poor to keep the food.

Some other better ways the judge could have taken: The judge could have ordered the officials overseeing the welfare matters and could have ordered them to compensate for the losses sustained by the owner. In fact, the judge had a very good opportunity to bring to the notice of that poor hungry person some of the welfare schemes that are set in place by the society.

But saying that a theft, which has caused damage to other law abiding citizen, is not a crime is not only ludicrous but is also dangerous.

>Others would find it ultimately antithetical to society overall to threaten people with prison for a theft like in this case. I certainly would.

I am not against the society helping the needy people to survive but there are other "not-so-antithetical-to-democracy" ways of helping the needy people than just ignoring the thefts carried out by the needy people.

What was wrong on the part of the owner? Why he/she was punished? These are some very important issues here. We must not fall prey to sentiments like "thefts of food by poor hungry is okay and anyway the shop owner is always that dirty-rich person who needs to be punished".

[1] Note about private property: please note that I am not saying/suggesting that we should embrace the communist style anti-people tyrannical systems which prohibit "most"* people from owing any private property. Of course, the communists allow only the "more equal people" [2] (e.g. party chairman and his cronies in polit-bureau and few of their cronies in turn) to own almost all of the property. The "party-people" are allowed to have as much fun as they want and at whatever troubles such fun-acts of the party-people cause to other "less equal" people, the communists just ignore.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

Tomte• 10 years ago

When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.

When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

Deuteronomy 23, 24-25

fromthemorning• 10 years ago

To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1]. The first is to make the punishment disincentivize future transgressions, and the second is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they won't make the decision to break the law again. Recently, society has been coming to terms with the fact that strict sentencing laws don't work in many situations (and often have unforeseen consequences, like the Revolving Door effect in American prisons [2]). In this situation, as much as we wish we could have directed the poor man to the nearest homeless shelter serving hot soup, it doesn't seem likely that taking away the threat of a 6 month prison stay would make him less likely to do that. The various hardships that are overindexed in the homeless population, from drug addiction to mental illness [3] (to perhaps a language barrier in this case) not only make them less likely to be able to find food consistently, but also make them less likely to respond to criminal disincentives.

It is a more enlightened philosophy of justice to acknowledge that saying 'you should have known better' won't make people know better. As the concept of morality progresses from a simple Hammurabian ear-for-an-ear justice game to a nuanced empirically-founded optimization problem, it will be interesting to see whether or not people continue to take pleasure in exerting it. That the latter problem tends to be incredibly engrossing to the technically literate means many of us will respond to this quite positively.

Postscript: If morality were a solved problem, would there be as many Effective Altruists?

[1] http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publicat... | relevant quote : estimation of mood disorders at "12% to 30% in various homeless samples".

objectivistbrit5• 10 years ago

Interesting to meet an effective altruist here. I was somewhat involved in EA for a while and even interned at an EA org, but after reading up a bunch of different philosophies the one which I found most consistent with reality was -- perhaps surprisingly -- Objectivism.

The inferential gap between EA and Objectivism is obviously huge, so it's not worth giving a full argument here. For the intellectually curious, though, I'll simply say that the two schools of thought fromthemorning cites both assume that the purpose of morality is to maximise the greater good (rather than, say, teaching individuals principles to maximise their own long-term personal happiness).

On the off chance that someone on the fringes of the EA movement reads this, someone who shares the concerns I once had - the ultimate issue with EA is that it's hyper-empiricist: EAs love evidence but are highly distrustful of theoretical arguments. This is an understandable position, but ultimately a mistake, because you end up unable to synthesise the vast amounts of data you gather. All truths are simplifications - what you need are rules to form correct simplifications.

Objectivism isn't taken seriously in mainstream intellectual circles but it should be, because it shows how to avoid the pitfalls of both empiricism and rationalism. (See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for details).

talles• 10 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

chevas• 10 years ago

What is going to stop a crowd of justifiably hungry people looting a grocery store causing the grocer to become homeless themselves and thus making the problem worse? The government has no right to sanction someone's property as "ok" to be stolen because of need. I'm generally not in favor of imminent domain for a public works project either, but that's another matter). This ruling is an act of aggression by the government against the non-hungry that steals not only their property, but their liberty. Most of us do not want anyone going hungry, but this is not the solution.

ashitlerferad• 10 years ago

Meanwhile the supermarket probably wasted many kilos of food the night before and locked the bin they threw it into. That is the crime that should be punished.

Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry

Related Stories