Italian court says no more Jean Valjeans

[Scooter]

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

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.

A fellow customer informed the store's security in 2011, when Mr Ostriakov attempted to leave a Genoa supermarket with two pieces of cheese and a packet of sausages in his pocket but paid only for breadsticks.

In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine.

For the judges, the "right to survival prevails over property", said an op-ed in La Stampa newspaper (in Italian).

In times of economic hardship, the court of cassation's judgement "reminds everyone that in a civilised country not even the worst of men should starve".

An opinion piece in Corriere Della Sera says statistics suggest 615 people are added to the ranks of the poor in Italy every day - it was "unthinkable that the law should not take note of reality".

It criticised the fact that a case concerning the taking of goods worth under €5 went through three rounds in the courts before being thrown out.

The "historic" ruling is "right and pertinent", said Italiaglobale.it - and derives from a concept that "informed the Western world for centuries - it is called humanity".

[BoSoxGal]

Humanity?????


Where's the humanity for the poor beleaguered shop owner? For ConAgra?

[Crackpot]

But he would presumably be fed those six months....

[rubato]

Spending thousands to prosecute and punish someone for being hungry is insane.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Long Run]

Would this person not have access to governmental financial assistance in enlightened Italy? As BSG notes, why should shop owners be subject to being the object of this forced charity? Presumably, the best thing that can happen to this homeless person is to be put into the system where he can acquire his basic needs, which will realistically only happen if there is some mechanism in place to stop him (and the thousands of similar people) from stealing from other people.

[rubato]

Hunger is immediate and present. Government assistance is apt to be remote and avail. Only at certain times; closed nights and weekends and not as abundant as ATMs (providing access to money for those who have it being a greater social value than providing access to food for those who need it)


Of course, having made any such provision is a perpetual salve to the consciousness of the warm and replete.


Yes,
Rubato

[rubato]

" ... which will realistically only happen if there is some mechanism in place to stop him (and the thousands of similar people) from stealing from other people.

One can only rationally expect that the majority will respect property in a society which appears to its members, and is realized in fact, as "fair" in distributing benefits and providing for its members.

When the bottommost 10th of society is treated cruelly you get what you deserve.

Yrs,
Rubato

[kmccune]

This poor fellow ,may not have even knew how to apply for assistance in Italy .
The biggest problem ,the population ,when the cheap energy goes away ,many more will starve .

[MajGenl.Meade]

The obvious solution is for the Genoa supermarket to have a special section marked "Help Yourself" so that the city's 10,000 poor can just walk in and take whatever they want.

Why is this not being done everywhere? Why not here?

Well, if Bernie gets elected, we can expect that to become law for every food business employing more than 2 people - along with the requirement for every food business to hire at least 3 people.

Trump will have punji stick pits and leg-traps surrounding the free food offer (and a wall between the sign and the food, just in case).

Her Royal Clintone-ness will create a government bureaucracy to manage the free food program and then turn it over to large banks and Wall Street to administer privately. Plus there will be an exit-the-shop tax on everyone who is not poor.

[rubato]

You're right. The law exists to protect the rich and strong AGAINST the poor and weak. What was I thinking?


Yrs,
Rubato

[Big RR]

Indeed it does rubato, just as it exists to protect the poor and weak from the rich. And like it or not, if you want people to farm, or to open stores and sell food, you will have to protect their businesses or those businesses will close. Declaring that anyone who is hungry can come in and take things without paying will discourage producers from growing food or retailers from selling it. It has a certain moral appeal, but the responsibility for feeding those who are hungry is a responsibility of us all, and we should put in a system where they will get food and the availability of food to all will be continued.

I recall when I was in college there was a single supermarket in the downtown area (which was pretty much a slum), and the store charged more than other area supermarkets in surrounding communities. I was part of a group that was working to help the poor get better treatment, and the tactic they were discussing was to have the people boycott the store; the students would use their cars and transport them to the surrounding (cheaper) supermarkets. I argued against it, saying we would probably wind up with the store closing, and the people we wanted to help being even worse off when the students tired of the carpooling (I wanted to try and open a dialog with the management and see if something could be negotiated). That's exactly what eventually happened, it helped no one.

[Lord Jim]

LOL

Indeed it does rubato, just as it exists to protect the poor and weak from the rich. And like it or not, if you want people to farm, or to open stores and sell food, you will have to protect their businesses or those businesses will close.

Oh man, you're going to try to explain basic economics to rubato?

Been there done that...

Good luck with that...Let me know how it works out for you...

[Big RR]

Well, you can read it right here as it unfolds and judge for yourself.

[BoSoxGal]

My post was intended as sarcasm.

When I was a prosecutor I didn't pursue cases where people stole only enough food to fill one rumbly tummy.

[Scooter]

I got that. The ConAgra reference should have been a giveaway.

[kmccune]

Basically all the sustenance farms are gone around here (*supplanted by expensive townhouses and expensive apartments )If more of our economy fails ,people are going to get leaner. Most of the affordable land has been gobbled up by the rich who dare you to set foot on "their " property" These land hoarders even get a tax break on their real estate if they put it in a "conservation easement "very few could live off the land in its natural state and you are caught doing so ,you will more then likely end up in jail (at least you are fed there )
I am sorry but the "Homestead act " needs to be reinstated .tthe rich Barons and Lords dont care if you eat or not , unless it turns a profit for them . .
More of the natural world should be common heritage ,not controlled by the first or richest squatter .

[Big RR]

Wasn't the homestead act giving the land to the first occupant (or squatter)?

[MajGenl.Meade]

More of the natural world should be common heritage ,not controlled by the first

That's noble and lasts about as long as when your first crop of cabbages begin to come up. Usually the fence has gone up before that.

[Big RR]

Or when the Grasshopper who frittered the summer away comes to your door and says "I don't have any food for the winter".

[Bicycle Bill]

Or when the Grasshopper who frittered the summer away comes to your door and says "I don't have any food for the winter".

Or how about when someone or some group comes up and claims "you owe me this" because of something that happened a long, long time ago and over which I had absolutely no control, but now all of a sudden it becomes my responsibility to make up for it?
I'd tell them the same thing I tell to the panhandlers who stand in their regular spots at the various stop lights near the fast-food joints and the interstate ramps with their cardboard signs... which is basically "I got nothing for you; now take a hike and quit bothering people".

-"BB"-