Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 406 posts

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

#151

Post by ctrlalt_g »

_Adam wrote: post #116
nkrisc wrote: post #31

A reasonable stance of compassion. It's a reprieve from the more common misanthropic Randian attitudes towards the poor. Be nice to the poor, there are so many things beyond our control that could make any of us poor tomorrow.

The only "Randian attitude" towards the poor is that no one should be forced to help them. This case is mandating that shops help poor people regardless of whether or not they want. It's a clear violation of property rights. Helping hungry people is a fine thing to do, as long as it's optional.

The state isn't mandating anything. Store owners can physically prevent people from stealing their wares if they wanted to.

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

#152

Post by rootlocus »

jbmorgado wrote: post #137
garyrob wrote: post #30

It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?

Well, perhaps you can see the problem from the other way: From now on is up to the government and ultimately to the society to make sure nobody is hungry. I mean, the production means are far more than enough to accomplish that and in the western world, only a society where wealth distribution is deeply unbalanced can have people going hungry, so that's the problem we need to address.

  > the production means are far more than enough to accomplish that
This is what baffles me: we have enough resources for everybody, but we somehow manage to justify how some people deserve luxury and excess, while others die on the streets. We're not talking about Comunism here, but the basic needs to survive.

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

#153

Post by scurvy »

toopok4k3 wrote: post #148
scurvy wrote: post #93

Europeans (DHH for example) constantly brag about what great social safety nets the European countries provide for their people, and that US style charities are a waste. Implying charity money should be given to the government as tax money and let the state do their work instead. Italy has just admitted that it can't take care of its citizens' basic needs. I'm not saying it's time to eat crow, but I am saying it's ti…

You draw a bit too many conclusions here. Maybe he was drunk or slept during the food lines, or he just didn't give a fuck that day? Poor people can decide not to receive any help they are provided. It's not like we can throw them into a prison for being poor.

So neither system can take care of all the people all the time? That was my point. It's time to stop pontificating that one approach is the only approach.

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

#154

Post by talmand »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #49
vtail wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you say in which countries?

Civilized countries. Germany, for example. The law argues that one cannot punish a person for loving freedom, even though the same law has put him behind bars.

Civilized countries? Nice insult you got there, not very civilized of you though.

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

#155

Post by sethhochberg »

rootlocus wrote: post #143
stronglikedan wrote: post #133

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for th…

Beggars ask for help in the streets, but I personally can't help each and every one of them. You may be sympathetic, but how is the homeless man supposed to find you when he needs your help?

In theory that is the whole point of taxpayer funded support programs... we can't all be there, but we do all pay taxes for the specific purpose of having a better society (including things like food banks, soup kitchens, etc for people in need).

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

#157

Post by zardo »

J-dawg wrote: post #112
garyrob wrote: post #30

It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?

It could work without causing chaos. We already accept that some special circumstances can make you innocent of a crime (e.g. killing in self-defence). But if you stab someone in self-defence you can still expect to be arrested and possibly put on trial. The onus is on you to prove you did it in self-defence. Surely this could be treated the same? It doesn't mean that stealing food has been decriminalised. You'll sti…

>Surely this could be treated the same? It doesn't mean that stealing food has been decriminalised. You'll still be arrested if caught, and you have to prove you were truly desperate.

But what a collosal waste of resources. What does a trial cost the state? It would probably be cheaper to just... feed the hungry people.

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

#158

Post by nowprovision »

stronglikedan wrote: post #133

I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for th…

I bet you've been pretty privileged in grand scheme of things, university, regular jobs, maybe the lowest point has been backpacking etc... Parent have at least one car, yawn yawn yawn.. No one is stealing from you, they are stealing from a supermarket. Privileged people always seem to think in black and white, theft is theft never an excuse blah blah, quite often making the cliche mistake of associating morality with legality.. I hope one day you don't need to learn this ain't always correlated..

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

#159

Post by rootlocus »

adrianN wrote: post #80
distances wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers.

It's a private business, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide who to allow into their own store?

Probably because stores are bound by the legislation.

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

#160

Post by talmand »

peterwwillis wrote: post #139
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance premiums go up ask risk goes up. This will increase risk. Now the vending business isn't profitable, I lose my means of making a living, and now what? Just join everyone in stealing? There are many unintended consquences here you're obviously not thinking through. The reality is that this ruling is a game-changer and many will interpret it in different ways. There's no hollywood style theft where you just s…

Risk will not go up, because vending machines will not be smashed, because they would go to jail for even longer than for just stealing food. I don't think you've thought through these extra cases you're worried about. They all involve extra crimes, which they would be convicted for, because the decision in this case was very specific. Judges do actually think about these things before they make decisions.

Risk for the owner's business does go up, because the pricing has to be adjusted to offset the theft; which affects everybody. Since theft is legal under this definition that means risk for the owner has gone way up now. Eventually insurance would not cover theft because there's little recourse to prevent it.

Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.

Post reply on HN