20 ms·
Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry
- notsotrue 10y agoBy this logic, money theft is 'not a crime' if poor.
- c0nducktr 10y agoHow so?
- Sweetness 10y agoFood is a bit more essential.
- notsotrue 10y agoIs 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.
- Sweetness 10y agoFood is a bit more essential.
- sp332 10y agoBeing 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.
- notsotrue 10y agoAgreed, 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.
- emodendroket 10y agoSo do you think, then, that the homeless should forego food until the state steps in out a principled concern for the free market?
- notsotrue 10y agoWhat I think is that the burden should be shouldered by the state, and not small business owners. What this ruling does, is place the burden of caring for the 'hungry' on grocers, which is an unfair burden. Unless the courts decision came with a way to compensate the grocer, this ruling is idiotically naieve.
- dragonwriter 10y agoUsually, compensation is the subject of civil lawsuits, not criminal process (though some systems allow restitution to also be addressed as part of a criminal action, but even there civil action is also available.)
- notsotrue 10y agoSo the grocer is going to sue 1000 insolvent hungry people? For what exactly?
- emodendroket 10y agoOK, but how do you think the actors in this story should behave, given that that is not the case? Should the homeless man starve to death? Or perhaps the judge should sentence him to years in prison for stealing less than ten dollars' worth of food?
- sp332 10y agoIn many jurisdictions people are allowed to kill other people if it's done in self-defense. If the alternative is dying, lots of things become legal.
- 10y ago
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoConsidering 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.
- sp332 10y agoIf society has failed people so badly that they're starving in the streets, they should probably expect riots let alone petty theft.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoYou expect riots when healthy, well-fed people suddenly stop receiving handouts. By the time people are actually starving in the streets, they don't have the energy to riot.
- emodendroket 10y agoYou do not have a basic biological need for money, actually.
- swayvil 10y agoactually you do
- lorenzhs 10y agoI 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.
- Avshalom 10y agoMurder 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 10y agoIs it possible to prove that one was hungry at the time of theft?
- celticninja 10y agoProbably easier if all you are stealing is €5 worth of food.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- swayvil 10y agoThe 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.
- rhino369 10y agoThat'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.
- celticninja 10y agoSeems 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.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- gedrap 10y agoSo, 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.
- sageikosa 10y agoCarrying capacity has no place in the calculation of the value of need.
- celticninja 10y agoNot sure what you are trying to say.
- sageikosa 10y agoI'm OK with that
- celticninja 10y agoSure 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.
- x5n1 10y agoShould probably say starving. I am always hungry.
- sp332 10y agoIt'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 10y agoThe 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.
- emodendroket 10y agoThat'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 10y agoGleaning 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."
- emodendroket 10y agoI'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.
- knodi123 10y ago> olives for the poor which clearly do not need preparation Olives cannot be eaten raw.
- emodendroket 10y agoOK, sorry. Nevertheless, grapes do not require arduous preparation to eat.
- duncanawoods 10y agoI 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.
- golergka 10y 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.
- nkrisc 10y agoThat'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.
- sp332 10y agoIt'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 10y 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 10y ago6 months in jail means free food for 6 months!
- kbart 10y agoI'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.
- Intermernet 10y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting
- kbart 10y agoWhat 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.
- Intermernet 10y agoThe original article is about about someone stealing food from a supermarket. Yes, the supermarket is the rightful owner, but they aren't going to actually consume the food.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoYou're not going to consume your bed, either.
- hartpuff 10y ago
- deepnet 10y agoFrance has long had a similar leniency for stealing bread.
- emodendroket 10y agoA sort of Jean Valjean rule, if you will. e: That's probably exactly what you meant. Whoops.
- kh2ouija 10y agoReminds me of how trying to escape from prison is not illegal in certain countries.
- vtail 10y agoCan you say in which countries?
- LaurentVB 10y agoIn 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 10y agoCivilized 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.
- talmand 10y agoCivilized countries? Nice insult you got there, not very civilized of you though.
- lorenzhs 10y agoGermany, 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 10y agoSo far, I can think of Germany and Mexico.
- janfoeh 10y agoThe 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.
- golergka 10y agoIt took them four years to reach a conviction on a most trivial of cases, that was then appealed even later?
- emodendroket 10y agoIt 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.
- idiocracy2016 10y agoPretty sweet! Between this and credit card bonus air mile rewards, next vacation is going to be way cheaper.
- hanief 10y agoReminds 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=PA36&dq=omar+bin+khattab+thief+hungry&source=bl&ots=UOOfbPvzfB&sig=9ppWu9Dqt6IMgJA1tH80N4WvIRc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=omar%20bin%20khattab%20thief%20hungry&f=false https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ZRqe3iPwsTkC&pg=PA36&lpg...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- return0 10y agoPrecedence of people not cutting off other people's hands for stealing? lots.
- NiftyFifty 10y agoEeeeghhhhhhhhh fooogetttaboutit.
- garyrob 10y agoIt'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?
- delecti 10y agoAlso, 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?
- rootlocus 10y agoConsidering 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY
- gedrap 10y agoSlightly related, throwing food away and the expiration date is a tricky thing. My dad works at grocery store and initially, they were allowed to bring the food home once it expires for a symbolic cost (10% of the price or something). Soon after that, the employees started to hide food so that they can take it home almost for free. So it didn't last long.
- omegaham 10y agoSame thing happens at restaurants. If a restaurant gives away excess food to employees at the end of the night, you're guaranteeing that employees will then cook excess food to take home a shitload. As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."
- 10y ago
- nkrisc 10y agoA 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 10y agoThe 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_g 10y agoThe state isn't mandating anything. Store owners can physically prevent people from stealing their wares if they wanted to.
- iamgopal 10y agoReminds me of La miserables.
- pc86 10y agoLes Misérables Edit: With appreciation to lorenzhs
- lorenzhs 10y agoWell if you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right - it's "Les Misérables"
- DonaldFisk 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law
- lorenzhs 10y agoThanks, I didn't know the name for this phenomenon. As a side note, grammatically "le miserable" is more wrong than "la miserable", as the latter is the right gender but lacking pluralization, while the former gets both wrong :)
- takno 10y agoMaybe 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.
- iamgopal 10y ago(I should have copy paste.) I have read it in Gujarati lang, that's why. (But would love to read original version someday...).
- sneilan 10y agoGunnery Sergeant Hartman: Holy Jesus! What is that? What the fuck is that? WHAT IS THAT, PRIVATE PYLE? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, a jelly doughnut, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: A jelly doughnut? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: How did it get here? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, I took it from the mess hall, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Is chow allowed in the barracks, Private Pyle? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Are you allowed to eat jelly doughnuts, Private Pyle? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: And why not, Private Pyle? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, because I'm too heavy, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Because you are a disgusting fat body, Private Pyle! Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Then why did you try to sneak a jelly doughnut in your footlocker, Private Pyle? Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, because I was hungry, sir! Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Because you were hungry...
- gedrap 10y agoIt 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 10y agoSurely 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 10y agoIn 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?
- sageikosa 10y agoOne 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 10y agoCan a group of hungry people combine, like a union, and steal the contents of a food warehouse or grocery distribution center?
- co_dh 10y agoI'm glad that stealing beer is still a crime :)
- Dotnaught 10y agoBut 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.
- talmand 10y agoYour 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.
- krzrak 10y agoDo you need to be hungry and poor, or just hungry? If latter - you can just help yourself in the supermarket whenever you wish?
- lorenzhs 10y agoTo 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.
- krzrak 10y agoOne 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.
- lorenzhs 10y agoNope, that's called being hungry, not starving. Skipping breakfast does not make an essential need for nourishment. If you're a healthy person you'd probably be fine without food for at least a couple of days, so you don't have an excuse to go around stealing stuff ;)
- krzrak 10y agoMaybe you're right :) Anyway, my point is: theft is always theft. One may get lighter punishment because of the motives, but still should be punished. It's really hard to die of starvation in modern society.
- adevendra23 10y agoThnking what it feels like to be hungry for 3 days and no money to buy food.
- kome 10y agoIn 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 10y agoBut 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.
- kome 10y agoOh that's why anglophone media is so thrilled.
- DarkContinent 10y agoWho decides if a person is truly starving and homeless, or just acting it to get free food?
- Avshalom 10y agoThe same people that normally decide if a person has committed a crime in Italy Judge/Jury/Whatever?
- akrigline 10y agoThe 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?
- CajunAlexTrebec 10y agoItaly 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?
- c0nducktr 10y agoPeople are homeless and go hungry in all countries. This isn't something that only happens in Italy. It's a worldwide issue.
- CajunAlexTrebec 10y agoGood point. On a related note, I personally cannot imagine a world where any theft is justified. Personal property rights are key in maintaining a functioning free market economy. This ruling by the court flies in the face of those rights.
- c0nducktr 10y agoI understand your opinion. I don't feel that taking from the person running the store is really the right option, but I believe it is better than allowing the person going hungry to starve. It's very upsetting to me that in a time of such great global wealth, we still can't find a way to feed the poor. I'm reminded of the quote by Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."
- rhino369 10y agoThat 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.
- scurvy 10y agoEuropeans (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.
- megalodon 10y agoWhat 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.
- scurvy 10y agoI 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.
- megalodon 10y ago> Europeans (DHH for example) constantly brag about what great social safety nets the European countries provide for their people > Italy has just admitted that it can't take care of its citizens' basic needs. Maybe you don't, but you are implying that this somehow is a failure of social safety nets. As someone else in this thread mentioned, the italian justice system is based on civil law, not on precedent (common law) so this ruling doesn't have the repercussions many seem to think. I'm not a lawyer however, so don't quote me on this.
- toopok4k3 10y agoYou 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.
- orkoden 10y agoAs the bible says http://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/Deuteronomy23%2C25 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 10y agoMen 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 10y 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 http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm
- vidarh 10y ago"unwilling"
- saosebastiao 10y agoIf 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.
- talmand 10y agoOr 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 10y agoActually, 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.)
- aninhumer 10y agoAm I missing some sarcasm here? Legalising stealing is basically abolishing property rights.
- avar 10y agoYou wouldn't need to abolish property rights. Another way to look at it is that you'd essentially transfer the cost of social programs to people through insurance instead of through taxation. Additionally you'd create a pressure in society to increase wealth equality / charity and opportunities for the needy / poor, since nobody likes to be stolen from all the time. Right now the poor are an abstract problem for many, especially the rich, if you ran the risk of being stolen from directly maybe you'd have a stake in increasing wealth equality. Or maybe you'd just hire private security. It might actually be a better system, or it might not, who knows?
- igotsideas 10y agoI 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.
- linux_girl 10y ago66% of the United States is overweight and obese. Yet these people will complain they are "hungry" even after they've hit the calories proscribed by their Basal Metabolism Rate (usually at breakfast). I hope Overweight people can never be considered "hungry" over this judge's law.
- weinzierl 10y agoUntil 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 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundraub
- adevendra23 10y agoI 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_g 10y agoA few days is nothing. Fasting for a few days actually feels great. Weeks and months of being constantly hungry, though, probably feels awful.
- stronglikedan 10y agoI'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.
- rootlocus 10y agoBeggars 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 10y agoIn 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).
- celticninja 10y agoFood banks and soup kitchens are predominantly provided by charities and religions. Not by tax payers. I would encourage you to look up what welfare is available for people like this in your local area to ascertain how much {if any] is tax payer funded.
- WalterSear 10y agoIn theory, sure.
- KingMob 10y agoAnd in America, the amount of those taxes set aside for feeding the hungry is below the required amount to cover everyone.
- panzagl 10y agoSooo, 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 10y agoMay 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.
- zardo 10y agoThis 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.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wahsd 10y agoWell, there you go folks. All of Africa should simply surge into Italy and take what they want. Problem solved.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dang 10y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive or inflammatory comments. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11620760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11620760 and marked it off-topic.
- ap3 10y agoJean Valjean?
- kolinko 10y 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 10y agoIn 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 10y agoSimilarly, under Italian law, beating the shit out of a bum isn't a crime if they're trying to steal your panino.
- mineshaftgap 10y agoReminds me of the scene in Falling Down "Give me some money man, I haven't eaten in days" "You're holding a sandwich"
- coffeeisgood 10y agoI 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 10y agoCi 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 http://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?id=3225 )
- xpaulbettsx 10y agoIsn't this the country that "Ladri di Biciclette" came from?
- tmptmp 10y agofrom 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.
- pyrale 10y agoMaybe we can care about this problem the day it actually happens, much like we would do if we were coding ?
- tmptmp 10y agoThe problem has already occurred, at least for the owner who lost the goods.
- vidarh 10y 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.
- tmptmp 10y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
- Tomte 10y agoWhen 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
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fromthemorning 10y agoTo 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 http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/state-of-recidivism http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publication/230755953_Homelessness_in_schizophrenia/links/540dafa10cf2df04e7564937.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publicat... | relevant quote : estimation of mood disorders at "12% to 30% in various homeless samples".
- objectivistbrit 10y agoInteresting 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 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity
- chevas 10y agoWhat 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 10y agoMeanwhile 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.