4 ms·

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

by 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.

by J-dawg 10y ago

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.