7 ms·

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 w

by garyrob 10y 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?

delecti 10y 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?
- rootlocus 10y 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY
  - gedrap 10y ago
    Slightly 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 ago
      Same 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."
      - gedrap 10y ago
        >>> As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things." Nah, it's just basic human nature. Would be really naive to expect something different.
        delecti 10y ago
        I don't think it's unfair to say "Human nature is why we can't have nice things."
    - monochromatic 10y ago
      Yeah, people respond to incentives. It sucks sometimes.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    They're not stealing from the 'expired food' area. Expired food in many countries ends up in food pantries as the date for canned and dried food has more to do with freshness/taste than actual health issues. So its already being socialized.
    - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
      Unfortunately in the US, most grocers and corporate stores do not donate their food. They lock the dumpster they throw expired food in. I've heard of places that bleach their dumpsters so people don't break in to eat the food. I do know of a handful of shops that donate, though. They tend to be much smaller.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tveita 10y 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 10y 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.
peterwwillis 10y 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.
- talmand 10y 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.
  - peterwwillis 10y ago
    Could have been lower, but they'd just pour that money into opening more store locations. They're currently the largest employee-owned supermarket chain in the USA and they only operate in a couple states.
    - talmand 10y ago
      >> Could have been lower... Yes, that's what I said. I find it interesting that in one sentence you admit something with no proof is not a given but the other part with no proof, that supports your negativity towards this store, IS a given.
umanwizard 10y ago
In practice I imagine it will result in homeless (or generally poor-looking) people being routinely banned from stores in Italy.
- sageikosa 10y ago
  Then breaking and entering will be made legal, if its for the purpose of procuring badly needed nourishment.
- distances 10y ago
  I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    It's a private business, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide who to allow into their own store?
    - distances 10y ago
      I replied in the other comment already, but at least in Finland a store can't simply choose their customers. If it's a store, by default everyone is allowed to shop there. I would expect most of Europe to follow similar rules.
    - rootlocus 10y ago
      Probably because stores are bound by the legislation.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    In the U.S. it certainly is, as long as you're not discriminating against one of a short whitelist of protected classes (homeless isn't on that list). I don't know the law in Italy. Do you, or are you just speculating?
    - distances 10y ago
fla 10y ago
IMO, "not a crime" doesn't mean it isn't reprehensible. The article doesn't go into details unfortunately.
elcapitan 10y 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.
- kome 10y ago
  ditto!
- riffraff 10y 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 10y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems
J-dawg 10y 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.
- zardo 10y 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.
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    I agree. I was just making the point that pardoning theft under exceptional circumstances would not necessarily lead to chaos, and could work with the existing legal system.
- DonaldFisk 10y 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.
- vidarh 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.
- rootlocus 10y 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 10y 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)

by garyrob 10y ago

delecti 10y 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?

rootlocus 10y 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8xwLWb0lLY
- gedrap 10y ago
  Slightly 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 ago
    Same 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."
    - gedrap 10y ago
      >>> As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things." Nah, it's just basic human nature. Would be really naive to expect something different.
      - delecti 10y ago
        I don't think it's unfair to say "Human nature is why we can't have nice things."
  - monochromatic 10y ago
    Yeah, people respond to incentives. It sucks sometimes.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  They're not stealing from the 'expired food' area. Expired food in many countries ends up in food pantries as the date for canned and dried food has more to do with freshness/taste than actual health issues. So its already being socialized.
  - fucking_tragedy 10y ago
    Unfortunately in the US, most grocers and corporate stores do not donate their food. They lock the dumpster they throw expired food in. I've heard of places that bleach their dumpsters so people don't break in to eat the food. I do know of a handful of shops that donate, though. They tend to be much smaller.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tveita 10y 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 10y 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.

peterwwillis 10y 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.

talmand 10y 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.
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  Could have been lower, but they'd just pour that money into opening more store locations. They're currently the largest employee-owned supermarket chain in the USA and they only operate in a couple states.
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> Could have been lower... Yes, that's what I said. I find it interesting that in one sentence you admit something with no proof is not a given but the other part with no proof, that supports your negativity towards this store, IS a given.

umanwizard 10y ago

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

sageikosa 10y ago
Then breaking and entering will be made legal, if its for the purpose of procuring badly needed nourishment.
distances 10y ago
I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers.
- adrianN 10y ago
  It's a private business, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide who to allow into their own store?
  - distances 10y ago
    I replied in the other comment already, but at least in Finland a store can't simply choose their customers. If it's a store, by default everyone is allowed to shop there. I would expect most of Europe to follow similar rules.
  - rootlocus 10y ago
    Probably because stores are bound by the legislation.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  In the U.S. it certainly is, as long as you're not discriminating against one of a short whitelist of protected classes (homeless isn't on that list). I don't know the law in Italy. Do you, or are you just speculating?
  - distances 10y ago

fla 10y ago

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

elcapitan 10y 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.

kome 10y ago
ditto!
riffraff 10y 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 10y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems

J-dawg 10y 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.

zardo 10y 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.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  I agree. I was just making the point that pardoning theft under exceptional circumstances would not necessarily lead to chaos, and could work with the existing legal system.
DonaldFisk 10y 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.
vidarh 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.

rootlocus 10y 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 10y 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)