Pregnant Woman Arrested for "Stealing" Sandwich

Remove all ads!

Last I looked social harmfulness was a necessary pre-condition of criminalising conduct. And then, intent is usually considered precondition for most crimes. Only in exceptions, negligence suffices. I have yet to see the crime called "theft by negligence" - i.e. in most cases a lack of intent would make an action not a crime.

Your unhealthy deference to authority is again getting the better of you.

This is excessive, and an obviously brain dead application of company policy on how to handle thefts. They treated the couple just like they treat shoplifters generally. As I said, it's that zero tolerance policy madness again. The case illustrates amply that one approach does not fit all circumstances. That even appears to have dawned on Safeway:

Learn from them.

 

Intent only really factors into serious crimes into the UK, murder and manslaughter being the best example, the prosecution would have to prove that the killer intented to kill his victim (not that I see much of a difference, the victim is still dead - caused by the attacker's actions, I don't care if he intended to kill him or not). In lesser crimes it doesnt, ABH is still ABH regardless of whether you went about with the intention of fighting or not.

excessive is irrelevent, 'law is reason free from passion' leave your emotion's at the door and look at the facts, she stole from the store, she was arrested for said crime. What ever happened to the days where criminals were treated like criminals? Your liberal attitude to authority is once again getting the better of you.

ummm, they were shoplifting. have you ever noticed that sign as you walk into a store? you know the one which says something to the extent of "we will prosecute all shoplifters to the full extent of the law!" if you dont like it, dont shop there.

every organisation on the planet releases a statement like that when they get a bit of public backlash, it appeases the liberal masses.

allow me to translate:

"from looking at the news papers"

"we handled it in accordance with our policies and the law, but since you dont see it that way, well, we dont really care"

"we're not going to do or say anything more on the matter... maybe give the couple some vouchers to appease you baying idiots, but, we really dont care"

edit:
ooooh, Ive just read a good article about 'intent' and will post after this question is answered:

what do you need to establish intent?

 

You do NOT see much of a difference? Really? Case A: Person deliberately shoots some one while robbing a store. Case B: Person driving home from work, some kid runs out into the street without looking, driver slams on his brakes, but can't stop in time, kid dies. You don't see much a difference here? At least in terms of culpability?

 

No, if they were indeed lacking intent, as is quite plausible, they weren't.

Forgetting to pay is not the same as deliberately eating the sandwiches with the intent not to pay for them. That are two separate matters entirely, and must be treated differently if fairness is to be a criterion. Alas ...

 

well, thats not manslaughter though, if the driver was driving lawfully then he is not culpable for that accident at all, however if he was speeding or drink driving then it should be murder.

really? I say she is guilty of intent through omission, by eating the product before paying for it she deliberately, through recklessness caused the crime. Guilt is established through involuntary intent in the exact same way it is with involuntary manslaughter.

BTA I was just taking the P!$$ with that comment, drawing on at what point does a crime become not serious enough for us to arrest people.

well, another analogy which may be better then yours, a driver drives into a petrol station, the general agreement being that you fuel your vehicle and then pay. The driver forgets to pay (which apparently happens quite often) and drives off. he will still be done for bilking.

infact in the above (sandwich) argument it could be argued that as she ate it before paying that she went equipped to steal.

 

I like the old saying with the law "Ignornace is not an excuse"

 

well, in my mind here, common decency would be that she waited until she paid for the sandwich before eating it.

 

What? No, no no! It is not!

What you write is false on a basic level: Intent is generally a precondition for committing any crime. That negligence suffices is, as I said, the exception, and an exception that has to be explicitly made law. A person cannot be guilty of the offence for the actions alone. He also must want to commit the offence. That is what intent is about. In legalese, you need both actus reus ("guilty action") and mens rea ("guilty mind"), to constitute a crime. In theory, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed. That is called concurrence.

Negligence goes beyond that, which is why it is an exception. Involuntary manslaughter is a crime only because of the social harmfulness of killing people. Unlike that, there is no criminal offence on the book that criminalises involuntary theft. Not even in the UK. I have yet to see it. The reason for why that is so is most probably lack of social harm caused by the fictitious crime that you have constructed. I mean, involuntary theft? Let that linger in your mind for a second. The concept alone is absurd.

Now, there is no argument, and I even share the sentiment, that she should have eaten that darn sandwich after paying for it. But that aside, I am not so stern as to call what she did theft. There is no basis for it. You cling to the harshest possible interpretation of the incident, even read more into it than Safeway. Heck, when Safeway, the hurt party, finds that the woman is credible, then you should do that as well. Cheer up.

 

Rubbish, actus reus actually supports what I stated above, thats where I read about involuntary intent and reckless acts. Mes rea is not necessary to prove an involuntary crime, by placing an item in your basket you satisfy involuntray intent because from that point of your original action you provide the reckless possibility of the theft of that item.

I seriously cant believe that you support a thief, what your saying is, that someone cannot be arrested for shop lifting unless it can be proven there and then that they meant to steal it.

edit:

I went shopping to my local morrisons tonight (morrisons used to be safeway) a friend of my wife works there and so I asked her about this situation, she said that this kind of thing is very common, people take things of the shelf, eat it and not pay for it, take a cake out of a box and put the rest back, or a razor or any item which could be seperated. She said they deal with it very seriously because apparently these shops wall paper their canteens and common areas with statistics showing losses from damaged or 'misplaced' goods at the hands of customers and they lose small fortunes every year in these kind of losses.

 

There is no involuntary theft. Period. It doesn't exist. It is a silly idea of yours.

In the absence of a criminal offence that makes negligence suffice in theft, actus reus without mens rea doesn't amount to a crime. Period.

When you lend me a book for a long time and I take it, I have met the criteria of actus reus. I lack a mens rea. In your mind I am a criminal anyway? BS.

Crimes can only be crimes when they are in the book. That's why, for criminality (decidedly not because it is necessary), it would be a precondition that there is an actual criminal offence like involuntary theft on the book. Alas, there isn't, and for good reason.

The idea of such a crime is silly. If your ludicrous standard was applied, the prisons would be full of scatterbrains treated as criminal masterminds. Wiser people than you see that and that is why such a crime only exists in your stern imagination.

 

if you dont return the book yes, that is how libraries fine people.

These people get fined. If you park your car in an hour space and forget about it, you still get a ticket.

read the definitions of many crimes a simple name give to a crime can have lots of meanings.

so, you once again are saying that this woman did not steal this item?

 

Yes, but forgetting to return books is not a crime, and the fine is not a criminal sanction. It's usually a contractual fine, or something based in administrative law.

That is not a crime either, it's a traffic violation, and something in administrative and not criminal law.

And what has that to do with your latest invention, involuntary theft? That's a meaning that not only is not written anywhere, largely because that 'crime' is imaginary, it also makes very little sense as a concept.

Yes of course.

 

The way you phrased your statement above means you do not believe the woman stole the sandwich, which is hogwash. Of course she stole it Ragusa. She picked up the sandwich, she ate the sandwich and she did not pay for the sandwich. It was her responsibility to ensure she paid, not the store's. A customer who absentmindedly walks out of a restaurant without paying is still guilty of theft -- usually a store or restaurant will allow the person to return and pay with no consequences. But this is not always true, especially in stores and restaurants where theft is a problem.

Perhaps restaurants/stores cannot charge an unpaying patron with theft in Germany but I assure you they can in the US. An offer to make restitution for the theft after getting caught does not diminish the crime here.

 

I don't know how the heck you get this to be involuntary. The basic assumption is that everything in the store is owned by the store until you exit the store having paid for the product. Technically my opinion is that the woman was already guilty of theft when she chose to consume a product which she obviously had not paid for. Okay, the store chooses to tolerate that "theft" on the assumption it's paid for afterwards. It was not and thus they reported it. It seems a bit like overreaction but it was their right.

 

BTA,
that's what I meant. Thanks.