Italian court rules food theft 'not a crime' if hungry • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by bayesian_horse » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

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…

It's not explicitly stating that stealing while hungry is moral, it's just that modern justice systems are not set up for "deterring" people from survival. Nor would that be moral, either.

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

#272

Post by hudell » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

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's the same situation in Brazil. I don't know if it's a law or a company rule of most big markets, but they simply added a few pennies to the price of the products as a form of insurance, then they don't call the police when they find someone stealing low amounts of food. It doesn't happen very often (the clerk that told me about this year ago had said it was the first time it happened in his shift)

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

#273

Post by estefan » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:20 PM UTC

DanielStraight wrote: post #239

estefan wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Catholic Church... are in no position to lecture anyone on morals. Read "The God Delusion" if this isn't abundantly apparent to you from studying history and/or reading the news.

Just in case it's not clear, you're getting downvotes because you are making an ad hominem argument rather than a logical rebuttal of the previous post. "Organization X is wrong about A, therefore they are wrong about B," is never a logically valid proposition. In fact, nothing about organization X is relevant when determining if their propositions are correct.

If "Organisation X" has acted in a morally corrupt and hypocritical manner for thousands of years, as far as I'm concerned it would be entirely irrelevant what their so called "morals" are. Therefore referencing them at all in this discussion is equally irrelevant.

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

#274

Post by pasquinelli » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #223

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'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 So, never been homeless, poor and hungry, I presume? Here's some Brecht for you: You gentlemen who think you have a mission To purge us of the seven deadly sins Should first sort out the basic food position Then start your preaching, that's where it begins You lot, who preach r…

or billie holiday:

You've got to have something to eat and a little love in your life before you can hold still for any damn body's sermon on how to behave.

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

#275

Post by eveningcoffee » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #232

eveningcoffee wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are right! We should provide aid for people who are in danger of starvation, but it does not give anybody right to steal from fellow human. I have a personal experience with possible abuse. I saw a man, probably a foreign (so he is probably not supposed to be familiar with local aid system), with a sign that he needs money for food because he is starving and he indeed did not look alright. After consideri…

> After considering the situation (well, to be honest he can be pretending), I decided to give the man 10 euros because if he really is starving, he should not stay there to collect small coins, but also as a test, such that he could be given further directions when he really is in need. Not much experience with being poor/homeless, have we? For those not faking it (which can happen too), a "starving" sign doesn't me…

Well, a poor choice of words then (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation)?

Anyway, I do not think that this was the case you are describing. The guy acted like he was really starving. So perhaps he was, I really do not know, I am just describing what happened.

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

#276

Post by kpil » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #240

ergo14 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense for me. It IS a crime, however one that court could rule to not punish the convicted. At least that is how it would probably work in my country.

Many legal systems recognize a defense of necessity (either personal or in the service of others) against things that would otherwise be crimes (often in a general way, not defined explicitly as part of each crime), rendering them not crimes when done out of necessity meeting the applicable legal standard. So, this isn't that odd.

Yes. You are allowed to drive under the influence of alcohol if you are trying to save someones life.

Or even shoot someone, as long as you could reasonably expect that your or someone else life was in danger. Even if it turns out that there was no real danger, for instance you where threatened with an unloaded or even a fake gun.

If you are very hungry, and steel a sausage, the crime compared to the need is very low.

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

#277

Post by fldrcr » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:26 PM UTC

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…

It's not about morality or property rights... Of course the man stole food. And when he gets caught he will go to jail where he will have a cover over his head, resemblance of a bed, and free meals...

This is a case of economics. The courts are ruling they no longer want to foot the bill, send the homeless man back to the streets and let him beg, feed, and steal from the businesses.

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

#278

Post by fromthemorning » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

To massively simplify a complex debate, there are 2 main schools of thought with respect to how to decrease future crime once a criminal has been apprehended [1]. The first is to make the punishment disincentivize future transgressions, and the second is to rehabilitate the criminal so that they won't make the decision to break the law again. Recently, society has been coming to terms with the fact that strict sentencing laws don't work in many situations (and often have unforeseen consequences, like the Revolving Door effect in American prisons [2]). In this situation, as much as we wish we could have directed the poor man to the nearest homeless shelter serving hot soup, it doesn't seem likely that taking away the threat of a 6 month prison stay would make him less likely to do that. The various hardships that are overindexed in the homeless population, from drug addiction to mental illness [3] (to perhaps a language barrier in this case) not only make them less likely to be able to find food consistently, but also make them less likely to respond to criminal disincentives.

It is a more enlightened philosophy of justice to acknowledge that saying 'you should have known better' won't make people know better. As the concept of morality progresses from a simple Hammurabian ear-for-an-ear justice game to a nuanced empirically-founded optimization problem, it will be interesting to see whether or not people continue to take pleasure in exerting it. That the latter problem tends to be incredibly engrossing to the technically literate means many of us will respond to this quite positively.

Postscript: If morality were a solved problem, would there be as many Effective Altruists?

[1] http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx [2] http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/00... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adriana_Foster/publicat... | relevant quote : estimation of mood disorders at "12% to 30% in various homeless samples".

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

#279

Post by js2 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

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…

Judiasm has the concept of ”Pikuach nefesh” which essentially commands that saving a life overrides almost all other considerations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

According to one source:

...The dominant view in Jewish law ... allows a person to steal or damage property of another to save his own life. Thus, one may break in to the house of another, or steal insulin if that was necessary to save his life. However, such a person must compensate the owner of the property.

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/ch_stealsavelife.html

This source also says about American law:

The issue is not whether a person can steal or destroy property to save his life or the life of others since it is accepted in American law that such an action is permissible. The issue is whether such a person must compensate the owner if he did not create the danger. There are few cases directly on point but the weight of such cases conflict with the position taken by sections 197 and 263 of the Restatements. These cases and the doctrines of admiralty law support the contention that when neither the actor nor those whose lives are saved are legally at fault for placing themselves in the perilous position from which they can only be saved by destroying the property of another, they bear no legal liability for destroying that property.

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

#280

Post by talmand » Tue, May 03, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #192

talmand wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Could have been lower... Yes, that's what I said. I find it interesting that in one sentence you admit something with no proof is not a given but the other part with no proof, that supports your negativity towards this store, IS a given.

Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people? Do you understand how capitalism works? They already dominate their market at the current prices. They have no need to lower the prices - doing so would only create a backlash if they ever needed to raise the prices again. Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest. Yes, it would be nic…

>> Why in god's name would they just lower their prices? To be nicer to people?

Um, yes? Most businesses actually work that way in an attempt to maintain customer loyalty. I'm not saying every business works that way, but that doesn't mean there are none at all.

>> Do you understand how capitalism works?

Yes.

>> They already dominate their market at the current prices.

That does not mean they wouldn't want to offer the best value to their customers. Just because a business dominates a market doesn't mean a competitor couldn't move in to undercut their artificially high prices to gain market share. Unless they have a monopoly provided to them by law, a business is at its best offering the best value to their customer while maintaining a decent profit. As free market capitalism suggests.

>> Keeping them artificially high is part of how you have sales anyway, which drive consumer interest.

I think you misunderstand the point of sales for many stores. Some unethical places may keep their prices artificially high so they can have "sales" to bring in customers. These types of businesses are run by stupid people. The traditional and proper use of sales is to have loss leader items that bring people into the store in hopes they will purchase something else at regular prices while they happen to be in the store to get the sales items they came for. Loss leader items in terms of items sold at near cost or even maybe below costs. Wal-Mart and many other grocery stores do this very well, as an example. Black Friday in the US as another.

>> were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?

I honestly don't understand the point of this comment.

>> But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.

This is totally true, I never claimed anything different. They are free to set their prices at anything they want and their customers are free to react to it in any way they want. That is the whole point behind the usage of the word "could" that was used by both of us.