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.
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.
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.
What 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.
Usually, 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.)
OK, 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?
In many jurisdiction around the world, people get stoned for having sex. Just because some jurisdictions allow something, doesn't stop it from being murder.
There is absolutely no way that a central system (even at the state or county level, if you're in the US) can surpass in allocative efficiency what an individual can do for themselves.
While I agree with you in principle, placing the burden on an entity far removed from the local context will always leave people underserved or forgotten entirely, in which case their instinct to survive will hurt the local business owners regardless of whether they would have helped voluntarily or not.
Judging the act not to be subject to criminal sanction is very far from judging it to be "the right answer", or even legally permitted in systems which have both criminal and civil remedies.
So who pays the grocer? It's both unlawful, and unethical to place the burden of feeding hungry people on the shoulders of the grocer as a cost of selling food.
> It's both unlawful, and unethical to place the burden of feeding hungry people on the shoulders of the grocer as a cost of selling food.
If its the effect of the law and legal system, it is not unlawful for the burden to be placed there, even if the individual takings are unlawful. Whether its unethical or not is debatable; its basically equivalent to the government taxing sales of food and using it to fund feeding the indigent (since the grocers costs of doing business are recouped in the prices charged to customers), which (while rarely explicitly done with food) is actually a not-uncommon model for providing goods or services deemed essential (that is, taxing sales to those who can afford it, and using the proceeds to subsidize those who can't.)
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.
You 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.
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.
This site has a threaded discussion system, context matters. The post you are referring to was responding to someone who specifically made the point that this was analogous to allowing poor people to steal money, which is clearly not the case.
In this context, it's clear you are both in agreement.
How so? Depending on where you live, going cold will kill you far far quicker, than going hungry. If the arguments are on need, then the need for shelter here in Canada trumps the need for food, by a long shot.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Most olive varieties are extremely bitter and need to be cured before they're considered edible. However, the bitterness is attributed to oleuropein, which people take in high doses without harm as olive leaf extract, so it seems likely that raw olives are not dangerous. And if you're willing to eat raw olives that's good evidence that you really are starving.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
The 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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Why would it be, it's not like fugitives will report to the police because of some law.
But the better you avoid authorities the worse the prison you get sent to. High security prisons are typically much less pleasant than low security prisons.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works?
They already dominate their market at the current prices. They have no need to lower the prices - doing so would only create a backlash if they ever needed to raise the prices again. Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.
Yes, it would be nice if they didn't have theft, and had extra money (were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?). But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
> Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works?
A great example of the point-and-splutter method of argumentation.
In a greedy capitalist system, the traditional answer to "why in God's name would they lower their prices??!?" is "to sell more stuff". You can reverse the question: why in God's name don't they raise their prices now?!??!?
>> Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people?
Um, yes? Most businesses actually work that way in an attempt to maintain customer loyalty. I'm not saying every business works that way, but that doesn't mean there are none at all.
>> Do you understand how capitalism works?
Yes.
>> They already dominate their market at the current prices.
That does not mean they wouldn't want to offer the best value to their customers. Just because a business dominates a market doesn't mean a competitor couldn't move in to undercut their artificially high prices to gain market share. Unless they have a monopoly provided to them by law, a business is at its best offering the best value to their customer while maintaining a decent profit. As free market capitalism suggests.
>> Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.
I think you misunderstand the point of sales for many stores. Some unethical places may keep their prices artificially high so they can have "sales" to bring in customers. These types of businesses are run by stupid people. The traditional and proper use of sales is to have loss leader items that bring people into the store in hopes they will purchase something else at regular prices while they happen to be in the store to get the sales items they came for. Loss leader items in terms of items sold at near cost or even maybe below costs. Wal-Mart and many other grocery stores do this very well, as an example. Black Friday in the US as another.
>> were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?
I honestly don't understand the point of this comment.
>> But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
This is totally true, I never claimed anything different. They are free to set their prices at anything they want and their customers are free to react to it in any way they want. That is the whole point behind the usage of the word "could" that was used by both of us.
>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.
Stealing food and destruction of private property are wildly different charges. And hopefully if you were a businessman you'd be smart enough to have insurance....
Insurance premiums go up ask risk goes up. This will increase risk. Now the vending business isn't profitable, I lose my means of making a living, and now what? Just join everyone in stealing?
There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. 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, etc.
Risk will not go up, because vending machines will not be smashed, because they would go to jail for even longer than for just stealing food.
I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.
Risk for the owner's business does go up, because the pricing has to be adjusted to offset the theft; which affects everybody. Since theft is legal under this definition that means risk for the owner has gone way up now. Eventually insurance would not cover theft because there's little recourse to prevent it.
Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.
Pricing won't go up because theft won't go up. Think through this whole process the way the judge did.
So now a homeless guy reads "Food is free if you're hungry!". He goes... really?? Walks into store. Right away, the store security is eyeballing him, because he's homeless, and the store owner reads the news, too. So now the homeless guy has a decision: since he's being watched even closer now, does he give up early, or make a brazen attempt? He makes the attempt... now the security catches him. "I'm hungry!" he says. "Too bad", security says. They take the food back and call the cops. One court case later, the guy is released. The store still has their goods.
There is plenty of recourse to cover theft (that which already exists and resulted in the guy getting caught the first time), food is not free, insurance doesn't go up. And pricing is already adjusted to offset theft, like I mentioned in another thread. The effect on the bottom-line for markets is nearly zero. Everything is the same as before this judgement, except the prison isn't full of homeless people who can't pay their fines.
Like someone else mentioned, either homeless people will be banned from stores, or they will be scrutinized more, and outdoor markets may retain some new form of controls or increased security. Or their culture will simply adapt to this new way of life, since not every person who can steal will steal (a weird idea for the US, but many foreign cultures work this way).
But there will not be roving gangs of hungry homeless trampling children and busting down stores. Business will not decline from the ravages of the hungry. And in a weird twist of the judgment, if they stole to have food, they'd no longer be hungry, and therefore would be committing crimes again. The judgement's language is very specific about the nature in which this took place and what it means.
I think there's plenty of examples of a small opinion resulting in big, unintended consequences. If people start thinking there's no long-term punishment for theft if caught then no one will attempt to take advantage of it? I'm not saying hordes of people will suddenly start a thieving life, that's just nonsense that no one is really claiming. But there will be people emboldened by such things.
Some people thought a similar thing a few years back in the US. The thought was that since sometimes innocent people are injured due to police chases that there should be restrictions on such chases, most of them involved giving up. The leading argument against was that you are essentially telling criminals to always run because the police will break off. I believe cooler heads prevailed that instituted new policies that did not allow such nonsense.
As for your example; do you think the store just returns the attempted stolen item to be placed back on the shelf to sell to another customer? Even if the thief is caught, there is a form of loss due to the product likely being useless to them.
Finally, yes the guy was caught but not punished. That is not necessarily a recourse for the owner of the stolen property, they are still out the stolen property. It's not like the neighbor's kid stealing your bike that can be returned, they can't sell food handled by a thief, security, and or police. If the effect on the bottom-line is nearly zero then why bother trying to prevent theft at all?
> 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.
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.
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?
I'm speculating based on the rules in Finland, assuming they would be quite similar in Italy. In Finland a store may not choose their customers based on a broad criteria (such as age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or other reason related to the person). I'm sure being poor would be included in this list. Badly behaving customers can be expelled.
I see. There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one. So I thought you might just be mistaken. I'm not sure whether the law in Italy is more similar to the U.S., or to Finland.
That's not a counterexample. That's an example of the short and defined list of prohibited axes of discrimination (the specific law at issue included sexual orientation as an enumerated category protected) discussed upthread in the US and contrasted with the Finnish rule against discrimination on any broad category. So, its not an example of the US having a rule like the Finnish open-ended rule.
The upthread claims were that it does, and that this is different from the US system of a limited set of specific things it is illegal to discriminate based on. I haven't endorsed either claim, merely pointed out that the example of the wedding cake case (which was based on a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations) is not an example contradicting the claim that the US has laws prohibiting discrimination on specific axes rather than the kind ascribed upthread to Finland.
If you have questions about the basis for the claim about Finland, you should as the poster several posts upthread who made it.
> There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one.
There certainly is such a law. It's not something to be proud of.
> In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores
> Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."
What? This is exactly what I said. "race, color, religion, or national origin" is a short whitelist of protected classes, which "homeless" and "poor" are not on.
"I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers". That was correct.
And US law, using the theory of disparate impact, treats discrimination on basically any category at all as discrimination by race. Barring entry by poor people would be prosecuted as anti-black discrimination seconds after a store tried to do it.
As a college kid who used to dress rough in NYC, I've certainly been escorted out immediately for just walking into expensive stores there. What's legal isn't what happens in all cases.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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)
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.
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.
Thanks, 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 :)
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.
Gunnery 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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
405 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 353 ms ] threadWhile I agree with you in principle, placing the burden on an entity far removed from the local context will always leave people underserved or forgotten entirely, in which case their instinct to survive will hurt the local business owners regardless of whether they would have helped voluntarily or not.
Unless it really is a true basic income.
I agree, basic income is the answer. But this judgement isn't logical or sound.
If its the effect of the law and legal system, it is not unlawful for the burden to be placed there, even if the individual takings are unlawful. Whether its unethical or not is debatable; its basically equivalent to the government taxing sales of food and using it to fund feeding the indigent (since the grocers costs of doing business are recouped in the prices charged to customers), which (while rarely explicitly done with food) is actually a not-uncommon model for providing goods or services deemed essential (that is, taxing sales to those who can afford it, and using the proceeds to subsidize those who can't.)
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.
Did they legalize smashing up $5000 vending machines if you're hungry too?
> Does the Italian government pay for the repairs?
Do Governments usually pay for repairs to private property?
In this context, it's clear you are both in agreement.
I mean that's a lovely headline and all, but in startups lingo, it doesn't scale.
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.
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."
e: Previously I claimed that olives don't need preparation which is false. Sorry.
Olives cannot be eaten raw.
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.
Only if they have IQ below the level which is considered minimum to be responsible for your 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.
The first judge clearly messed up. A suspended sentence would have been ideal in this case.
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
e: That's probably exactly what you meant. Whoops.
The law argues that one cannot punish a person for loving freedom, even though the same law has put him behind bars.
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.
But the better you avoid authorities the worse the prison you get sent to. High security prisons are typically much less pleasant than low security prisons.
[1]https://books.google.co.id/books?id=ZRqe3iPwsTkC&pg=PA36&lpg...
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.
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.
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.
I do know of a handful of shops that donate, though. They tend to be much smaller.
Or even petition the government to set one up paid by their taxes.
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.
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.
I'm sure their prices could have been lower if they didn't have up to 15% shrinkage as well.
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.
They already dominate their market at the current prices. They have no need to lower the prices - doing so would only create a backlash if they ever needed to raise the prices again. Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.
Yes, it would be nice if they didn't have theft, and had extra money (were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?). But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
A great example of the point-and-splutter method of argumentation.
In a greedy capitalist system, the traditional answer to "why in God's name would they lower their prices??!?" is "to sell more stuff". You can reverse the question: why in God's name don't they raise their prices now?!??!?
Um, yes? Most businesses actually work that way in an attempt to maintain customer loyalty. I'm not saying every business works that way, but that doesn't mean there are none at all.
>> Do you understand how capitalism works?
Yes.
>> They already dominate their market at the current prices.
That does not mean they wouldn't want to offer the best value to their customers. Just because a business dominates a market doesn't mean a competitor couldn't move in to undercut their artificially high prices to gain market share. Unless they have a monopoly provided to them by law, a business is at its best offering the best value to their customer while maintaining a decent profit. As free market capitalism suggests.
>> Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.
I think you misunderstand the point of sales for many stores. Some unethical places may keep their prices artificially high so they can have "sales" to bring in customers. These types of businesses are run by stupid people. The traditional and proper use of sales is to have loss leader items that bring people into the store in hopes they will purchase something else at regular prices while they happen to be in the store to get the sales items they came for. Loss leader items in terms of items sold at near cost or even maybe below costs. Wal-Mart and many other grocery stores do this very well, as an example. Black Friday in the US as another.
>> were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?
I honestly don't understand the point of this comment.
>> But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
This is totally true, I never claimed anything different. They are free to set their prices at anything they want and their customers are free to react to it in any way they want. That is the whole point behind the usage of the word "could" that was used by both of us.
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.
There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. 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, etc.
I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.
Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.
So now a homeless guy reads "Food is free if you're hungry!". He goes... really?? Walks into store. Right away, the store security is eyeballing him, because he's homeless, and the store owner reads the news, too. So now the homeless guy has a decision: since he's being watched even closer now, does he give up early, or make a brazen attempt? He makes the attempt... now the security catches him. "I'm hungry!" he says. "Too bad", security says. They take the food back and call the cops. One court case later, the guy is released. The store still has their goods.
There is plenty of recourse to cover theft (that which already exists and resulted in the guy getting caught the first time), food is not free, insurance doesn't go up. And pricing is already adjusted to offset theft, like I mentioned in another thread. The effect on the bottom-line for markets is nearly zero. Everything is the same as before this judgement, except the prison isn't full of homeless people who can't pay their fines.
Like someone else mentioned, either homeless people will be banned from stores, or they will be scrutinized more, and outdoor markets may retain some new form of controls or increased security. Or their culture will simply adapt to this new way of life, since not every person who can steal will steal (a weird idea for the US, but many foreign cultures work this way).
But there will not be roving gangs of hungry homeless trampling children and busting down stores. Business will not decline from the ravages of the hungry. And in a weird twist of the judgment, if they stole to have food, they'd no longer be hungry, and therefore would be committing crimes again. The judgement's language is very specific about the nature in which this took place and what it means.
Some people thought a similar thing a few years back in the US. The thought was that since sometimes innocent people are injured due to police chases that there should be restrictions on such chases, most of them involved giving up. The leading argument against was that you are essentially telling criminals to always run because the police will break off. I believe cooler heads prevailed that instituted new policies that did not allow such nonsense.
As for your example; do you think the store just returns the attempted stolen item to be placed back on the shelf to sell to another customer? Even if the thief is caught, there is a form of loss due to the product likely being useless to them.
Finally, yes the guy was caught but not punished. That is not necessarily a recourse for the owner of the stolen property, they are still out the stolen property. It's not like the neighbor's kid stealing your bike that can be returned, they can't sell food handled by a thief, security, and or police. If the effect on the bottom-line is nearly zero then why bother trying to prevent theft at all?
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.
Careful with online lawyering, its illegal not to bake a marriage cake for a gay couple, to cite a recent famous example.
If you have questions about the basis for the claim about Finland, you should as the poster several posts upthread who made it.
There certainly is such a law. It's not something to be proud of.
> In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores
> Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
And US law, using the theory of disparate impact, treats discrimination on basically any category at all as discrimination by race. Barring entry by poor people would be prosecuted as anti-black discrimination seconds after a store tried to do it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35474167
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
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.
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.
It might be different in Italy, though.
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.
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.
Helping hungry people is a fine thing to do, as long as it's optional.
Edit: With appreciation to lorenzhs
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 :)
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.
Why would this not work?
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.
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.