In a ruling sure to heighten migration tensions in the EU, Italy’s highest court rules “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.
In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine.
However, his case was sent to appeal on the grounds that the conviction should be reduced to attempted theft and the sentence cut, as Mr Ostriakov had not left the shop premises when he was caught.
Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation, which reviews only the application of the law and not the facts of the case, on Monday made a final and definitive ruling overturning the conviction entirely.
“The condition of the defendant and the circumstances in which the seizure of merchandise took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity,” wrote the court.
Given that theft is no longer a crime, I expect an enormous outbreak of theft from Italian grocery stores.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Theft hasn’t been a crime for bankers for ages. The amounts are a little different though!
I’m always hungry so…I am moving to Italy!
Rape not a crime if “randy”?
First, what was he doing in Italy?
Second, if the court was to rule on the LAW and not the “facts of the case”, then the amount stolen and the physical state of the Defendent, should be not a factor.
So, if I walk into that store and take the exact same items, me being a fat Ugly American, would I be charged and convicted of theft or not? Same items. Same store. Same time.
This is why 99% of those who are not Lawyers despise Lawyers and the B.S. Law. There is no law. I remember an attorney saying to me there is no law…just what the Judge says.
‘Law is not justice’.
[Second, if the court was to rule on the LAW and not the “facts of the case”, then the amount stolen and the physical state of the Defendent, should be not a factor.]
Don’t you mean rule on the law should ignore the specific fact of food being stolen, only that something was stolen.
Well what is the alternative. Pretend to steal $5 of food, get six months room and board in jail? Granted it’s not fun but that’s a whole lotta food money. Of course, if you have a gazillion people who cannot easily feed themselves, you just opened the door to crime. They’ll be selling from behind locked windows before long.
Looks like judges have joined economists as highly educated fools
The only true fools in human history are dumb and heartless Americans.
Is there no compassion and altruism in the collective American psyche??
No, of course not. Only GUNS, GUNS and more GUNS!!
Truly a ‘Throught the Looking Glass’ moment.
Mish, I love you but you’re exaggerating what happened here. The court did not say “Theft is no longer a crime.” Nor did it say, as your headline does, that “Theft is not a crime if hungry.”
The ruling, at least as translated to English, said the defendant “took possession of that small amount of food in the face of an immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of necessity.”
No one is saying the fact that feeling the urge to eat ice cream permits you to steal some. Ice cream is not immediate and essential. This is more like the ancient right of the poor to “glean” leftovers from a bountiful harvest. That practice was well established in the Roman codes that preceded Italian law. Rulings like this are not at all unusual there.
Theft is not a crime if hungry was in quotes – the BBC Headline
And yes, it is a license to steal – in small amounts – to eat
exact BBC headline
Italian court rules food theft ‘not a crime’ if hungry
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557
Mish
“The ruling, at least as translated to English,”
no matter … what matters is how it’s translated in the language(s) of the immigrants.
People steal continuously without even considering it.
An animal steals from the plate at a table and at worse gets a clip on the ear.
A person steals food from a shop and might be jailed for however long.
It reduces to establishing a punishment in line with the threat – hence a human society of open theft is considered to be avoided and the punishment is harsher than for an animal… which is probably unjust except by reasoning in favour of society before the individual. As society is abstract its representatives can create the facts as they go along, or alternatively be above the law to enforce a law. Such is life.
As far as necessity is concerned, its root meaning is ‘unavoidable’, a judge may claim that by law he cannot avoid punishing, it is unavoidable for society etc.
That does not get us very far really, the fact that a judicial authority and the police act as a buffer to a more instant form of justice neither, as it is somewhat inevitable that they will not set a higher example simply by their position. A higher example would be the judge saying ‘ if you are hungry come to my house and I will feed you, and I will also repay the grocer for what you took ‘.
But it does not happen like that, does it?
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law
‘There must be an urgent and immediate threat to life which creates a situation in which the defendant reasonably believes that a proportionate response to that threat is to break the law. This reflects the distinction between the defenses of necessity and duress in that the former is pressure of circumstances arising naturally, whereas the latter is a threat from an entirely human agency that overpowers the will of the defendant. The general approach was laid down by Lord Denning in Southwark London Borough Council v Williams (1971) 2 AER 175 that necessity should be denied as a general defence because otherwise anarchy and disorder would follow. If hunger was allowed to become the basis of necessity, any poor person might seek to justify burglary to steal food by arguing that he or she had reasonably believed that this was a proportionate response to the threat of malnutrition. Thus, the fact that hunger does not arise spontaneously, and there are other ways in which to seek relief from poverty (e.g. by seeking welfare support or charity), would deny the defense of necessity.’
As you know however, law and its interpretation differs greatly between countries and cultures.
It’s ok. Like all good capitalists you should ask the fellow to die from hunger than to steal a sandwich. At least the unemployment rate would go down
Bankers steal billions. Bankers criminally prosecuted? ZERO.
I read a story last August, about a man who had been sitting in jail since April, having stolen 5 dollars. He had been found dead in his cell.
Last time i was on jury duty, the orientation judge had the audacity to say we have the rule of law in this country.
please study the LAW the law is very clear in this exact matter, if it is an absolute NECESSITY then that necessity over rules all statues / legislation. the supreme court rules correctly.
Necessity is in the eyes of the beholder.
That said, I never challenged the ruling, I merely stated the consequences.
I don’t believe there will be a rash of new thefts in Italy. Most people are honest regardless.
.
.
Actually Mish if you want to know the facts they are as follows:
A. No local government wants to jail a person for $ 4.05 because the cost
for food, clothing, medical in jail far exceeds that.
.
.
B. No local government wants to pay to process such a case through
appeal either. Attorney fees alone are stifling.
.
.
C. See People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1973)
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. “motion to dismiss in the interest of justice”
also known as a “Clayton motion”…
.
.
.These type of cases are dismissed all the time, that these idiots wasted time
on an appeal and would actually spend $ to jail a man for 6 months for $4 – is insane.
.
.
.
I don’t disagree with a single thing you said.
Where did I say or even imply anything else?
That said, the case in Italy just made it to Italy’s highest court.
People are going to realize they will not be convicted.
Heck, based on the ruling, they will not even be prosecuted, and may even not be arrested.
My Statements
Statement 1: In a ruling sure to heighten migration tensions in the EU, Italy’s highest court rules “Theft Not a Crime if Hungry“.
Statement 2: I expect an enormous outbreak of theft from Italian grocery stores.
Please explain which statement you disagree with.
Make the case.
By the way here is another fact: This case made it to the highest court in Italy.
Someone made a foolish decision to take it that high did they not?
Mish
Actually Alexa, ‘the law is the law’ and any case placed before a court must be pursued according to that law. A judge cannot wave a case away unless it lacks evidence etc., protocol is adaptive outside of court ( a lawyer persuades a victim not to prosecute etc.) but inside court the judge will rule according to strict guidelines and case law.
The Ukrainian being let off is now case law, and they will normally no longer prosecute people who ‘ steal food out of necessity’.
In other EU countries the legal definitions are being constantly and publicly tested. It matters – I say that without giving any opinion of what the law should be.
.
A. Mish, we agree. The Ukranian stole food. The case was dismissed.
.
What the Court ruled was that the Governments had to set up food service
so this does not happen. If you read between the lines.
B. Crysangle
Google it – it is the law.
See People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1973)
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. “motion to dismiss in the interest of justice”
also known as a “Clayton motion”…
.
.
Clayton.
” On July 12, 1972, the county court dismissed the indictment against Clayton—not on the grounds of his request, but on its own motion, sua sponte and without a hearing, exercising its authority under 210.40.
on its own motion, sua sponte
.
.
Among other Clayton’s confession was judged not voluntary
” At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing in 1971, the District Court found that the confessions were not voluntary—that the defendant had been subjected to a sham arraignment and had been constantly questioned for over 60 hours without adequate food or rest.[19] The Court of Appeals implemented the order of the District Court requiring the defendant’s release from custody unless he were retried within 30 days. The defendant in March 1972 was released on his own recognizance by that court.”
Interpretation of CPL 210.40 and 210.45 Edit
First, the Court found that the provisions of CPL 210.40 and 210.45 require that when a court considers a dismissal sua sponte, the parties should present evidence and arguments as may be pertinent to the “interests of justice”, for which considerations include:[22]
(a) the nature of the crime;
(b) the available evidence of guilt;
(c) the prior record of defendant;
(d) the punishment already suffered by defendant, in this case 19 years;
(e) the purpose and effect of further punishment;
(f) any prejudice resulting to defendant by the passage of time, and (g) the impact on the public interest of a dismissal of the indictment.
The appellate division acknowledged the subjective nature of the calculus involved, which appealed to “factors largely resting on value judgments of the court,” but emphasized that those judgments must necessarily rest on facts in the possession of the parties; such factors should also be set out in the record to facilitate review. The Second Department believed that this hearing requirement pitched the appropriate balance:
The sensitive balance between the individual and the State that must be maintained in applying the test of the interests of justice which CPL 210.40 contemplates moves in response to factors largely resting on value judgments of the court. But those judgments in turn hinge on the production of facts in the possession of the prosecution and the defendant. Moreover, the discretion of the court cannot be properly reviewed unless the record discloses the facts upon which the court’s judgment was based. On the one side the statute allows an escape from the rigorous rules controlling the dismissal of an indictment only for reasons arising from substantial defects in supporting evidence or required procedure; on the other side, the statute erects the well-considered discretion of the court as a safeguard to prevent a dismissal of the indictment unless the public interests are as fully protected as the individual interests of the defendant for justice and mercy.
It may well be that the County Court will again conclude that the indictment should be dismissed in the furtherance of justice after giving deliberation to what the parties may offer on the remand. Certainly, we do not say that the court cannot reach such a conclusion; and, indeed, the defendant’s interests and the public interests may coincide to compel that conclusion. All that we now hold is that full opportunity should be afforded to the People and the defendant to provide the court with such evidence and arguments that they deem relevant to the issue.[23]
Discussion of the facts Edit
In this case, the defendant’s motion to dismiss had not prayed for relief “in furtherance of justice”, but rather on the ground that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals had not been followed by the People. Hence, no adequate notice of that claim was given to the prosecution. Although extended colloquy between counsel and the court occurred on the argument of the motion, some of which related to the location and existence of witnesses, the question whether the defendant should stand trial in the interests of justice was not directly the subject of the defendant’s motion.
“The County Court in dismissing the indictment found that the defendant had already served 19 years in prison; that he could be retried only for murder in the second degree, which carries a penalty of an indeterminate sentence having a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of life (former New York Penal Law, § 1048); that court time could be better used for other purposes; that the defendant is presently free and working; and that the prosecutor had once offered to accept a plea to manslaughter [in the first degree], punishable by a maximum imprisonment of 20 years (former New York Penal Law]], § 1051). All of these considerations plainly flow from events taking place after the homicide for which the defendant was indicted, and, of course, these considerations might be modified or amplified by other events relevant to the interests of justice.”
‘We will not prosecute theft of food because it wastes our time’ is yet to be heard. Leniency, minimum sentences etc. maybe, and in Italy they seem to have fixed the maximum sentence at zero.
I was thinking of opening a grocery store in Italy, but now I’ve changed my mind.
I’m going to say the point to this from Mish is that it’s alot like the story of the kid with his finger in an Amsterday dike. It’s only a small trickle of water, until the dam breaks and the street has an unstoppable flood. This incident publicized means that the trickle may very well become a flood of thieving. Especially considering the lack of employment, abundance of able bodied and bored people – now more than ever thanks to the influx of MENA invading hoards, and all out craziness with laws.
Honestly, I can’t believe this sort of story hadn’t been publicized sooner or that the EU hadn’t imploded already.
New motto for grocers. Shopping prohibited if hungry.
Hungary had much broader laws passed years ago. Stealing is not punishable if it’s to make a make a living. The case for many Roma.
One is in the hand of God at sea and in court!
Men in a ship are always looking up, and men ashore are usually looking down.”
– John Masefield
Wind is to us what money is to life on shore.
– Sterling Hayden
Man marks the earth with ruin – his control stops with the shore.
– Byron
Being hove to in a long gale is the most boring way of being terrified I know.
– Donald Hamilton
http://www.coastalboating.net/Resources/Quotes/
First, even in this country it is common to get a light sentence when stealing food. I was told that you spend your welfare (entitlements) on anything you want, then steal food because it isn’t a big deal.
I think some of you should read Clarence Darrow’s 1902 Cook County Address. (To the Chicago jail inmates.) He outlines how the inmates are victims and business and government are the real crooks.
Would not try guessing on sentences :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/us-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357741/In-court-charged-theft-finding-woman-took-food-Tesco-bin.html
Ended up looking at dumpster diving, new topic… illegal in Germany and Italy even ( unless necessity? … not, as there are always supermarkets open ) , part legal in UK, mostly legal in US etc. In the UK Sasha Hall received a conditional discharge. Some links just out of interest:
https://comescavenge.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/skipping-and-the-law/
https://comescavenge.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/skipping-and-the-law-part-ii/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving
AINT LIBERALISM GRAND!
In Poland we have a very nice law for thieves. For reference, minimum pay is 1380z PLN, the value of stuff you can steal before it becomes a crime (meaning the criminal court will see to your fate if caught, otherwise it is a misdemeanor) is 800 PLN, this in turn leads to thieves running around and stealing with calculators in hand. Earlier it was 200 PLN, but it seems police and courts could not be bothered.
In Catholic countries of which Italy is one it is widely understood that one has an obligation to keep oneself alive. That gives a starving, cold, homeless person a right to do whatever is necessary short of assault, battery, killing to stay alive.
I am surprised no one has twigged on to this on this blog.
It really seems appropriate to weigh the social overhead cost relative to the punishment which could take many forms.