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

[FrodosPet]

Source: BBC

Stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime, Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled.

Judges overturned a theft conviction against Roman Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth €4.07 (£3; $4.50) from a supermarket.

Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian background, had taken the food "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment", the court of cassation decided.

Therefore it was not a crime, it said.

~ snip ~

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

---

In a humane world, no one would need to take any food without permission. The able bodied would have a job that paid enough that people could survive on their earnings. With enough surplus to take care of the children, the frail, and the elderly.

[PSPS]

1. Jean Valjean

[jtuck004]

5. When the play Les Miserable was on Broadway, there was some housing for people with

low-incomes nearby.

Homeless people from there used to ask theatre goers for money to buy food, until complaints got so bad the police moved the homeless people away....

[bjo59]

8. This info reminds of of something Kevin Phillips wrote in "Wealth and Democracy":

about even when the the streets are overflowing with poverty stricken homeless ("beggars&quot , the most wealthy will still be celebrating the "good times" with no idea that the economy is on its very last legs. A number of years ago two stories appeared in the media that brought this to mind as well. One about Catherine Zeta Jones washing her hair in a caviar, the other about a bar in Los Angeles that was selling Cosmopolitans that cost $10,000 ... each had a diamond at the bottom of the glass.

[braddy]

9. I saw where one of our health oriented actresses had a more affordable recipe for her

morning smoothie, for the general public, they could make it for as little as about $235.00.

[Baobab]

42. This is a historic decision

if you think about it

In just a few years, jobs will be very scarce, machines will do everything, so we need to start thinking, what the hell is the world going to do. We cant just have wars and kill everybody off (the traditional method)

because that will destroy humanity.

[Scootaloo]

51. I must know.. .what the fuck is in that smoothie?

Like, even doucheburgers - you know, the ones with foie gras, truffles, waygu beef, covered in gold leaf? They cost maybe that much. What the fuck is this smoothie made out of, rolex watches and dodo eggs?

[braddy]

52. There is "moon dust" for one thing (ground up pearls to you peons). here are a couple of links.

http://goop.com/recipes/gps-morning-smoothie/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/21/is-there-any-science-behind-gwyneth-paltrows-200-smoothie-either-way-we-drank-it/


Since she published her recipe, it was brought up that the ingredients are mostly good for a number of smoothies, so the per smoothie cost is a lot less than first reported.

[Scootaloo]

54. Gwynneth Paltrow? No wonder.

...Cordyceps? Like... bug-infecting, mind-controlling, zombie-making fungus cordyceps?

I love that apparently chalk dust comes in a variety of flavors. Including one that's good for sex.

Gwynneth Paltrow is a nut.

[braddy]

55. It's funny, I could probably never get her to eat a chili dog, yet look at what she will eat.

[JustAnotherGen]

76. I KNEW it had to be the GOOP!

Good lord - and people actually go to her 'life style' site.

[colorado_ufo]

12. I wonder if this was something that was misreported?

Who could wash her/his hair in fish eggs? However, I did see in a local store a high-end shampoo brand named Caviar. Perhaps the media either misunderstood or saw a chance to sensationalize the actress's shampoo?

But who in the world would want to drink something with a diamond at the bottom? I would either choke on it or swallow it and spend the next two days in the bathroom with a strainer.

[ReRe]

16. Whyyyyyyyy...

... I'd belly-up for a few of them there Cosmopolitans with a diamond
at the bottom of 'em in a New York minute. Set me up!

[braddy]

53. A strainer? Me too, but that is why we don't get "conspicuous consumption" heck if I became truly

rich, I would have to hire someone to force me to order a la carte, rather than always looking at the lunch special.

[MariaThinks]

2. good for them.

[Baobab]

43. Meanwhile, the US is trying to make giving poor people food or healthcare or education WTO-illegal

seriously.

Thats what we get more of with Hillary.

[jwirr]

3. Finally.

[fred v]

4. Bravisimo!

[Gomez163]

6. Is he required to compensate the store owner at any point?

[philosslayer]

24. Why?

The store owner can afford it.

[Gomez163]

25. Why don't I walk into your house and take something?????

I really need it. I'm sure you can afford it.

[philosslayer]

27. Clearly you disagree with this decision

But it's a correct one. Try to show some compassion

[Gomez163]

29. Compassion is fine. He doesnt go to jail. However the store needs to be made whole.

[philosslayer]

34. Then what is your solution?

The man has no job and no assets.

[Gomez163]

35. He needs to get a job and pay it back somehow. I know that may be a

radical idea to some but its the only solution I see.

[LiberalElite]

50. It's not a "radical" idea - it's a

defend the corporation at the cost of kindness, empathy and morality idea.

[The2ndWheel]

67. The store owner didn't consent to this person taking the food

You can't steal things just because you need something. I mean, you can, physically, and philosophically, but that's why we made up all these rules and laws. We can change the rules and laws, to allow people to steal food in cases like this, but then where does that stop? Why does that person get to take something, but I can't? How do you define need? I need that car to get to work today, so I'm just going to take it without the person knowing. I need that piece of clothing, so I'm just going to take it and walk out.

Why would there be any businesses? If you can just take stuff, why would anyone open up a store? I guess that's basically where we're headed. So many things are being or will be automated that nobody will really have a job. We'll just have a place where the stuff is, and people can come and take what they need or want.

Until then though, you can't just allow people to steal shit. Well, again, you can allow that, but now we'll have to make more rules and laws to figure out who can or can't take stuff, and what they can or cannot take. Of course those new rules and laws will be unfair for someone somewhere, and then we'll have to make more rules and laws. Utopia can't get here soon enough.

[Reter]

65. Not the store owner's problem

Let the government give him food.

[scscholar]

26. Exactly

If you own a store then you are part of the ruling class. You have a responsibility to the people.

[philosslayer]

28. Well put

N/t

[Gomez163]

30. Most small businesses are not part of the ruling class.

We cannot permit indiscriminate stealing. We need orderly stealing so it can be expected and budgeted for.

[Baobab]

44. the cashless economy is all about that, so that bypassing the system and giving the poor food

will be impossible. People will wireless networked and likely have a meter on their nose and mouth since water will be the white gold of the 21st century I am told.

if people "free ride" on society and fall more than 30 days behind on their balance of payments they will be shut off.

[Drahthaardogs]

62. Oh please.

Every small business owner I know from a lawyer to my friend who installs hardwood floors lies like a rug on their taxes. That is theft too. Stealing from the rest of us. My friend was getting divorced and her husband's business records were a mess. Her lawyer told her that "the judge won't care if he lied on his taxes - we all do that. She will care he withheld funds to his family".

Seriously...

[EX500rider]

33. Really? If you own a small corner store you are part of the "ruling class"?

On what planet?

[Gomez163]

47. Merchants have always been the middle class

[EX500rider]

56. Not quite the same thing as the "ruling class"

[Travis_0004]

36. What about a responsibility to turn a profit to pay your employees?

[scscholar]

37. Shouldn't everyone...

contribute to helping the hungry?

[Travis_0004]

38. Sure, if somebody steals food from my store I'll just deduct it from everybody's paycheck.

I can also send you an invoice if you would like.

[scscholar]

39. I've had shrinkage deducted from my bonus...

so I've already paid personally.

[Baobab]

45. No obviouly its not right if there are a lot of hungry people roaming around taking food(sarcasm

They will restrict movement so that poor people will gradually be pushed off the economic map. To vote, people need a place to live, right, end of story.

Nauru does a thriving business housing people like that. Indebted or disabled people could be put into suspended animation until their debts were paid or until they could afford health care.

Out of sight, out of mind. is everybody satisfied now?

[olddad56]

41. yeah, because small businesses never go under.

[Codeine]

63. You're nuts.

The owner of the small business I work for qualifies for food stamps.

[Yupster]

61. That was my thought too

The victim of the theft should be able to turn in a voucher to the government and be repaid.

What if 100 homeless people a day walk through the grocery store grabbing a few meals a day? They're just supposed to let them

empty their shelves day after day?

Are there some foods they can take and others they can't? Or is the owner of the store just supposed to let them take whatever they want?

[Baitball Blogger]

7. The opposite of affluenza defense is

famerenza

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. This makes an interesting precedent.

Store owners now should stop detaining shoplifters, since no crime is being committed. Restaurant owners should allow people to leave without paying, since no crime is committed.

Very humane, if a strange business model.

[Baobab]

46. I don't think that will happen because not far into the future people will need to have good credit

to even walk into the store.

[christx30]

57. If the alternative is that people can steal

with no consequences, you're right. No one will be able to steal from you because you won't let them into the store to begin with.
The man in the OP is going to be banned from the store to avoid a repeat performance. And his picture will be circulated to other merchants in the area for the same reason.

[Baobab]

59. it will all be computerized

biometrics

[christx30]

60. Convenience store clerks have been

doing this for years to combat theft. Now they know they can't rely on the police to do anything about petty theft.

[Katashi_itto]

11. Had this been America he would have gotten the proper punishment, twenty to life.

Damn progressives.

[Democat]

13. What does this mean for shop owners?

I can understand the court's position on one hand (not wanting to send someone to jail for trying to avoid starvation), but if a small shop were to be required to feed all of the homeless in the area, they would go out of business pretty quickly.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. Yeah, I don't understand how this can hold up

All one has to do is claim impoverishment if you are caught?

While I empathize with this gentleman and his desperate act, how can this work? I could see the courts being bogged down with cases where businesses must challenge the "degree of destitution" of any perp they catch. Who else decides what is the level of destitution that exempts prosecution?

[d_legendary1]

19. No one is requiring anyone to feed the homeless

The ruling states that if a person takes a small amount of food for sustenance and is in dire need then it is not considered a crime. If someone were to steal a honey baked ham it'd be a different story.

Stores are also permitted to deny entry to certain patrons. Not sure if Italians can discriminate on gender, religion, or race but the norm is that if they don't like you they won't let you in (its their store).

[Baobab]

48. face recognition is extremely good now and everybodys wallet has multiple RFID devices, plus people

almost all have bluetooth devices that have a unique mac ID. Somebody without these entropy possessing devices stands out like a sore thumb.

So they wont even make it in the door.

[pugetres]

32. I don't imagine it would change much of anything.

A merchant's (at least in the US and I can't imagine that it is much different in Italy) ability to recover monies lost through theft is a civil issue. The Court's decision was about what happens on the criminal court side not the civil court.

[KamaAina]

14. Well, so much for the Italian version of Les Miz.

[houston16revival]

15. Stand your Ground Round

Dinner by eminent domain

[Baobab]

49. you probably mean 'adverse possession' ?

nt

[CrispyQ]

17. So instead of government taking care of the people, individual shop owners have to?

I applaud the attitude behind this but this isn't the right solution.

[d_legendary1]

21. Neither is jailing somebody for being poor

Its gonna cost a lot more than $5 to hold him in a jail cell.

[CrispyQ]

22. Sigh. . .

Not at all what I said, but what-the-fuck-ever.

[d_legendary1]

23. You didn't. I did.

But feel free to ergo decedo my POV. It is a message board after all!

[cstanleytech]

20. The court is wrong because it is theft and therefore a crime but its one in general

that should only lead to reasonable punishment based upon the persons circumstances and their past criminal history if any.
For example someone who is out of work or homeless who is trying to get a job but just been unable to should be sentenced to having to attend a vocational school or some sort of job training program paid for not by the government but rather by the businesses with a special tax since its in their interest to keep thefts down.

[happyslug]

31. People forget that under Roman Law, theft was NOT a crime.

The use of force to steal was a crime, breaking into a home was a crime, but not mere theft. Theft was viewed as a civil action against the thrift. i.e. sue him for money.

Code of Justinian (The Code makes a difference between theft, which it calls "Manifest Theft", and fraud, which the code calls "non-manifest theft):

5. The penalty for manifest theft is quadruple the value of the thing stolen, whether the thief be a slave or a freeman; that for theft not manifest is double.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.asp#II. Goods Taken by Force are treated similarly, but the actual use of force was considered CRIMINAL.

Now, Ancient Rome also permitted people to sell themselves into Slavery to pay off debts, thus one result of theft COULD be slavery, but only if you could NOT pay for what you stole. Under the Empire, the main source of Slaves seems to have switched from Foreign captures to the domestic poor (and the punishment for being poor and being a slave merged, during the Republic no Freeman could be whipped, but slave could be as while as killed by his master, but the second century both could still be whipped and slaver owners no longer could kill their own slaves, this trend continued till the fall of the Western Roman Empire).

Just a comment that theft NOT being a crime has a long history in Italy, for Italy was the heart of the Roman Empire.

[Blue Owl]

40. The Italian Food Court

[ronnie624]

58. Don't forget the mentally ill, the addicted and the 'lazy'.

Justice says that everyone should receive a share of the earth's resources. Access to basics, like food, housing, healthcare and education, should be a human right.

[bemildred]

64. +1. Food should be a public utility, well run farms with well paid farmers producing what is needed.

Not what pays the best. Profit is not the right criteria for food production management, quality and nourishment are.

[Reter]

66. No Democrat would defend this

Radical Socialists might, and Communists would, which is what I see in this thread.

[ronnie624]

68. Stealing is wrong, but a system that provides no recourse to the hungry is even worse.

A radical departure from the status quo, is what will be required to mitigate the effects of the approaching climate disaster and preserve our civilization. It's just that simple. Continuing down our current path, clinging to antiquated, barbaric, illogical, unjust 'theories' about economics, will not serve the interests of a modern civilization. A change will eventually be forced upon us, and hopefully it won't be too late.

[The2ndWheel]

69. Civilization is the status quo

It is also, as a tremendous resource concentration mechanism, what amplifies our ability to change the climate.

[ronnie624]

70. Therefore change to the system isn't possible?

I see nothing illogical in your comments, but it doesn't logically follow that an equitable system for distributing resources isn't possible.

The way I see it, the biggest impediments to justice for all are not physical, but in fact, psychological. People enter into these discussions with far too many false underlying assumptions and mental hangups.

[The2ndWheel]

71. We live on a finite planet, but we have what is basically an unlimited imagination

Those two things tend to be in conflict.

I would agree that a lot of it is mental. Humans create problems, because we assign subjective values to people, places, things, events, etc. We think equality is good, but concepts like equality, and good, don't exist anywhere outside of the human mind. Which is why nobody can fully agree on what to do, because people see whatever it is that we call reality however they want to, or can, see it.

Illiteracy as another example. A human created problem, that isn't an actual problem, but because we invented words and little lines that represent words, it's a problem. Same thing with climate change in general. Objectively, it's not good or bad, it's just something that happens. We've labeled it bad though, so we must fight it and stop it. We have to stop change, but we also love change, it just depends on whether we say it's good change or bad change. The definition of good or bad change of course depends on who you ask.

Justice for all. It's as much an assumption and mental hangup as anything else humans think of. We all have them, because we're subjective beings. Which is what makes fairness, and justice, and equality, and whatever else, so difficult to find; they don't exist out there in physical reality somewhere.

[ronnie624]

73. Reality is defined by the known laws of physics,

not by subjective interpretations. The belief that anything is possible through sheer force of will, is flatly wrong. That assumption right there, distorts everything that follows, and causes one to believe in things that are not true.

[The2ndWheel]

74. Defined by who?

Human rights, fairness, etc, etc, are not laws of physics, yet our day to day lives in physical reality are also certainly defined by those subjective interpretations of what existence should be.

Right now, people actually think it's May 4th, 2016. We have imprinted that onto reality from our imagination. Not really imprinted, but we think we see it, even though it's not there. It's on a calendar and everything. The month of May, the 4th day of that month, and the year 2016 don't exist. Months, days, and years don't exist period.

The belief that anything is possible through sheer force of will, is flatly wrong.

Can't disagree with that. But then, throughout human history, might has made right. America, and basically every nation really, wouldn't exist if that were not the case. Which goes back to reality being defined by the laws of physics. Here's a rock, here's your head. Do as I say, or the laws of physics will help me kill you. The subjective interpretation would be, no, you shouldn't kill me.

[ronnie624]

75. A regard for human rights and fairness,

is absolutely consistent with fundamental principles logic.

Maintaining an economic system that is, from its foundation, unequal and unjust, does great harm to our civilization, in the long run. If you scrutinize it with a little bit of honesty, the lack of logic is quickly revealed.

[NobodyHere]

72. Does Italy have food stamps or an equivalent?