Talk:Theft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Theft and other legal matters

There's more to theft than legal matters, likewise there's more to murder than legal aspects... Why those pages involving legal terms and events or circumstances only care about the legal aspect? I don't care what frigging nugging linning things are done with thieves in the US or anywhere... All I want is to read something about theft throughout the ages, categories and kinds of theft and such non-legal aspects of theft... Why must we be content with this content? Really... If someone could enrich these articles with interesting information... That would be great...

This article is part of Wikipedia:ProjectLaw. Therefore, it's about the law of theft, not the ethics or history of theft. And whereas there are many famous murders, there are few famous thefts. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

we need a helpful discussion of theft; legal and psychological aspects for instance

- And the article, and especially the links, needs to be cleaned up.

[edit] Theft Photo

Is that bike theft photo really necessary? It is kinda funny, but doesn't fit well the more serious and legal aspects of the whole article. It gives the article a rather silly look. I'm sure we can find a more interesting photo. I'm removing it for now. What do you guys think about it?InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a substantial number of the pictures included in Wiki are redundant or inappropriate but they add to the look and feel of the project. Theft of biccycles is actually a specific offence under s12 Theft Act 1968 so it is not completely wrong. David91 01:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually find those set of pictures humorous. Unless if it is the purpose of the pics, I think we should replace the image. Akira Tomosuke 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petty vs. grand theft

The article should at least provide a summery of the differences petty vs. grand theft as is done in U.S. law. --Cab88 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $400 (it can be money, labor or property),[2] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[3] Both are felonies, but grand theft is punishable by a year in jail or prison,[4] while petty theft is punishable by a fine or six months in jail.[5]"

The definition of Felony is any crime which is punishable by a year and a day in jail or more. That is what makes grand theft punishable - it's actually a year and a day - and what makes petty theft not a felony, because it's only 6 months. I don't want to change this outright though...

Much of the US law section should be fixed. First, I'm pretty sure that the assertion that most states still go with larceny is incorrect. At the very least the citation is poor, it cites to the applicable NY statutes, not something that speaks to the law among the states generally. Also, my check on the cited California statutes in Findlaw turn up a number of problems. First, the code doesn't make reference to misdemeanor or felony, it just lists the penalties for grand theft and petty theft- sections 489 and 490 respectively- with other sections modifying depending on circumstances. Second, section 489 lists imprisonment for 16 months, 2 years or 3 years for theft of a firearm and says not more than one year in jail for all other cases (and I have to figure there's another section, because there is very likely a fine that can be imposed as well.
I think a better tactic than just picking NY and California versions, as much as they may be looked to by other states at times, would be to look for articles that discuss the consensus among those states that adopt some version of the model penal code for theft, those states that still use some form of common law larceny, and those notably do not go either way. It should start with an outline of model penal code sections then go to actual application. I myself, however, am not up for that. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blank space

Can anything be done about the huge blank space at the beginning of this article?

  • Fixed. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent. The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, embezzlement, and false pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft. JFLKJAWELJOIAW; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.237.2 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still unclear

If someone comes from some remote areas of the Amazon and has abousutely no idea what money is and how it works, they take something from the store without paying because he/she does not know they have to pay. Does that count as theft?

Presumably, such a person would not be dishonest and so would not be guilty of theft. But to travel from the Amazon would have required money and some familiarity with the concept of purchasing necessities on the way like food and drinks, so such a defence is unlikely to be credible. David91 01:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If the person has different idea of "personal possession" and believe that he can take it because it's there, it can be argued that he is not committing a theft. This probably won't be accepted anyway in many courts, but some cultures have a very low and different threshold of personal possession. For example in a certain culture, if you invite someone to your property, the invited person may do whatever he wants to do. Let's say that you have a very expensive wine stored in your refrigerator. A person from that culture will drink it without asking because that's the their definition of "hospitality". This is true even if you told him to not to drink it because on inviting, the "possession" is now actually handed over, so when he decides to drink, he has no moral conflict in ignoring your request. Following this logic, another person from same culture may appropriate anything he can get hand on and take it back home, of course without asking. This is usually a theft, but he does not feel he is stealing, because he considers this as a kind of "gift". If you prevent this person from taking anything, he will actually be angry from being "mistreated". You probably won't believe this, but this culture actually exist. --Revth 05:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wrongful taking"

Shouldn't the intro to this article say something like "unlawful taking" or something else less biased? An encyclopedia should never label anything as "wrong", should it?

Right.

I'm a bit late, but I don't how much as there are no signatures. Hopefully someone else can fix this as I don't feel quite ready to track down the sources and fix this accordingly.
If I understand the question and answer above, the presumption is that "wrongful" is a moral judgment and should not be used in this article on a legal topic. The problem is that this further presumes that law is not defined by morality and does not even make use of morality for definitions. I'm not even going to try and list numerous examples, historical and contemporary about why this is wrong...err, incorrect...generally. I will however, give this link to an ALI pdf dealing with conversion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion and sorry, I don't know how to do links yet). Link is http://books.google.com/books?id=AAI9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA672&lpg=PA672&dq=%22wrongful+taking%22&source=web&ots=jExbbYRBoS&sig=m-RowVLvAEz5ov6_7wA5bTmpx3E&hl=en
As you can see, the law itself, and those who discuss it, refer to wrongful takings. Editing that out entirely is non-encyclopedic. No, I don't know if that phrase is used solely historically (in which case it's still pertinent, especially for Common Law jurisdictions) or how much contemporary use it enjoys. This should be checked, but the reference to wrongful taking should likely be included someplace. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section about misuse of the term?

IP freaks keep calling copyright infringement/filesharing/cracking "theft", although these don't involve taking something away from somebody else ("permanently deprive the other of it"). There should be a section that addresses this misunderstanding.--84.188.156.54 12:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this usage goes back a long way. E.g., on a record from 1960 on the Lobachevsky track, Tom Lehrer says something like "... and I thought it would be interesting to steal [I mean] adapt this idea...". A google search on "steal idea" reveals thousands of hits, with many hits outside the IP proponent's camp. So perhaps there should be a paragraph about the common usage of stealing as in "steal an idea", though this usage does not meet the criteria of removing any property, as ideas cannot be removed from their owner. I presume the "steal of idea" usage is where the IP proponents derives their usage of stealing music etc, so that usage could be listed here, if desired.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esben (talk • contribs)

There's several mentions of the use/misuse of the term "theft" or "stealing" as pertaining to copyright infringment/bootlegging/piracy elsewhere on WP already. The opening paragraphs of copyright infringement mentions it, and has links to other articles such as Dowling v. United States, a 1985 court case which found that copyright infringement could not be equated to theft. Of course, this is a relatively old case that doesn't reflect changing attitudes, what with the advent of the internet, MP3, peer-to-peer file sharing and so on. I'm no expert on legal matters, nor have I kept a close watch on how more recent copyright infringement cases have turned out, but I do think that a section about the common use of the word(s) outside of their legal definition would be a worthwhile addition to this article. ~Matticus TC 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a pretty bad argument, too. By pirating Photoshop instead of buying it, you are depriving the company of money they would otherwise have earned. You gain from another person's loss, it is clearly theft. cacophony ◄► 14:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If you set up a shop next to another shop and sell similar goods for a cheaper price, you are also depriving the company of money they would otherwise have earned, and gaining from another person's loss. That doesn't mean you are guilty of theft though. (I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with copyright infringement; just pointing out that your argument is flawed.) I shouldn't really be debating this here anyway, though. Talk pages are supposed to be for discussion directly related to the improvement of the relevant article. Jibjibjib 08:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any flaw in the Photoshop argument. Adobe Systems (creator of Photoshop) owns the rights to its products and services, which includes the right to distribute (or not to distribute) the product in exchange for goods, services, or any other thing, that they set as the price. If everyone can take the product freely without paying, Adobe Systems would be hard pressed to make a profit on their investment or even recoup their investment. Thus depriving them of something, that they own or are entitled to.
As far as the cheaper price shop next to the expensive shop goes, the "deprivation" there isn't a theft, nor is it an valid response here. Simply put, the expensive shop typically does not 'own' a potential marketplace. It's apples and oranges.
Taking and/or using something that isn't yours without permission is theft. We all learned this in Kindergarten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.250.206 (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily; for example, dishonest borrowing of a motor vehicle is a specific offence under the UK Theft Act 1968 because there is no "intent to permanently deprive". A Taking and a Using, but not a theft. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you gotta love the tendency to lawyer about what is and isn't theft, as if the opinions of people on teh interweb had any influence at all on reality! Rodhullandemu has the most valid point here, because he has a clear and inarguable source - and sources beat all. If people can provide a reliable, third-party, authoritative source that adds something constructive to the article, then it can be added. If people want to make a point about how, despite law X, Y isn't theft because of Z, well, that's why they invented blogs. Here at Wikipedia, we have to deal with real life. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felony?

In the "Theft in the U.S." Section, it says that both petty and grand theft are classified as felonies, yet it says the punishment for petty theft is only six months in jail. Isn't the defintion of a felony a crime that lands it perpetrator in jail for a year or more? Pogo 17:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on sources

It says, "repeat offenders who continue to steal may become subject to life imprisonment in certain states", but the first cited example (Rummel v. Estelle) is unclear on whether the sentenced party would actually be in jail for his life, or for 12 years. In addition, the second example (Lockyer v. Andrade) was contested and found to be grossly disproportionate in comparison to an earlier case.
Are there any other examples that are more clear on this? I'm in favor of changing the statement to be more specific on what happened to the defendants in those cases, but I'm not sure what exactly went on. It's clear that they were convicted for crimes they committed. I know that much. It's the exact reality of the sentence that seems ambiguous. Kennard2 07:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest first finding a statute that permits life imprisonment and look the statute up in an annotated report of that jurisdiction's laws- be they statute, code, or whatnot. Since the statement is in the present tense, you only need to find a current law, not have to go drudging through historical versions. The annotated copy should include all relevant cases and also be listed by categorized case notes, with table of contents for the same. Typical categories include "Constitutionality". Then just skim the paragraph descriptions in pertinent case notes until see something about court can give life sentence or court improperly gave life sentence and then look up the actual cases. InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with "Larceny"

I can only speak for British jurisdictions. Until the Theft Act 1968, theft was everywhere covered by the Larceny Act 1916 - since the Republic of Ireland was then part of the UK, it applied there. After independence in 1926 (?), the Republic was able to pass its own laws, but retained the Larceny Act. Hence, when I practised law in the 1970s, I dealt with an extradition warrant to RoI under the 1916 Act (for a seagoing vessel valued in the millions) - hence the term certainly persists in some jurisdictions. AFAIR there is little practical difference between the two terms - the Theft Act 1968 was specifically stated, IIRC, to be a codifying (but modernising) statute. So I'd support a merger as long as historical & territorial distinctions were made clear. It's much the same as arguing a distinction between "fraudulent conversion" and "obtaining property by deception". --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose merger. Larceny is not exactly the same as theft, either in NY law or the common impression. Keep them separate. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems nobody else is that interested, so I'll remove the merger tag. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Larceny

This is not a request to merge with Larceny, but we may want to at least determine what distinguishes them. The section above mentioned England, but the U.S.A., section 4 of Am.Jur.2d (American Jurisprudence) indicates that the two can be interchangeable.

If you read the larceny article carefully, you will see that the definition at common law was the unlawful taking of tangible personal property. In this modern age, there is no distinction under theft statutes. It is possible to steal services. This would have been handled under the laws of contracts at common law. Modern jurisdictions have saw fit to prosecute these offenses criminally. Stealing HBO by using a cable converter would not be larceny, but it would be theft. Legis Nuntius (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I reviewed the NY Penal Code, and skimmed Virginia's as best I could via Findlaw, and both of those appear to have larceny for goods and theft for services. I also understand that larceny originally only applied to goods. But the thing about common law crimes, and of course statutory crimes, is they can change. Larceny used to require a "carrying away" in addition to a taking, but that was dropped in most to all jurisdictions that still use it. The Common Law used to only recognize burglary committed at night (I think, or day. Pretty sure night). So I'm wondering if there are jurisdictions that have larceny offenses that cover the same acts as theft offenses in other jurisdictions. IMHO (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)