Paging Jean Valjean. Jean Valjean to the courtesy phone.
May 3, 2016 8:06 AM Subscribe
On appeal, Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation has overturned the conviction for theft of Roman Ostriakov, a homeless man who stole a few Euros worth of sausages and cheese in 2011. The court ruled that "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment" the theft was not a crime.
In American courts the defense is called necessity.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:24 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 8:24 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
His name is Jean Valjean.
posted by sparklemotion at 8:25 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by sparklemotion at 8:25 AM on May 3, 2016
🚲
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:46 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:46 AM on May 3, 2016
24601 fits the meter better
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:02 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 9:02 AM on May 3, 2016
A fairly religious great-aunt of mine told me that toward the end of World War II in occupied Holland, when there were serious food shortages, she was bicycling past a farm where there was a big pile of sugarbeets laid up near the road. Sugar beets are grown for cattle and don't make good people food, but they can be cooked and eaten. She had no food at home, and she decided that in this instance, "the Good Lord will not blame me for stealing one sugar beet from this pile." It being dusk, she did so without getting caught. It's good to see this court create the same exemption she believed the Lord gave her.
posted by beagle at 9:03 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by beagle at 9:03 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
In American courts the defense is called necessity.
Does case law back that up in this country? English courts have ruled otherwise, basically on the thin end of the wedge argument. What effect will this ruling have on shop owners?
(The beet example fails because as described it suggests that there were no other avenues for food available. (Rome, by contrast, has soup kitchens.) Moreover, it becomes classic tragedy of the commons. One woman taking one beet is no big deal. Many women taking all the beets means a starving cow, ergo no milk or cheese.)
posted by IndigoJones at 9:21 AM on May 3, 2016
Does case law back that up in this country? English courts have ruled otherwise, basically on the thin end of the wedge argument. What effect will this ruling have on shop owners?
(The beet example fails because as described it suggests that there were no other avenues for food available. (Rome, by contrast, has soup kitchens.) Moreover, it becomes classic tragedy of the commons. One woman taking one beet is no big deal. Many women taking all the beets means a starving cow, ergo no milk or cheese.)
posted by IndigoJones at 9:21 AM on May 3, 2016
Famously during the Great Famine in Ireland many people were transported to Australia for stealing food, as immortalised in the song The Fields of Athenry.
posted by kersplunk at 9:39 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The rise in crime during the Famine, from 20,000 on trial in 1845 to nearly 39,000 in 1849, was mainly due to nonviolent crimes against property, not against persons. The use of cash on the relief works brought money into areas where it was uncommon before, and increased the opportunities for robbery. The most common crime was theft, of food or clothing, but large numbers of those arrested died before they could be brought to trial.- The Irish Famine: An Illustrated History (Helen Litton)
The usual punishment at the time was transportation - convicted persons would be exiled abroad, to hard labour in Australia, and rarely returned. As the Famine worsened, pepple began to commit crimes deliberately so that they could be transported. However dreadful it might be, it could not be worse than dying of starvation or fever where they were.
posted by kersplunk at 9:39 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
/pedant
Pedant tags are open ended and forever. Once opened there can never be any satisfactory closure.
posted by srboisvert at 10:02 AM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pedant tags are open ended and forever. Once opened there can never be any satisfactory closure.
posted by srboisvert at 10:02 AM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Does case law back that up in this country?
No, not really. From the treatise Wharton's Criminal Law:
Most of the actual case law is from the Great Depression era. For example, State v. Moe (1933) (Washington) and People v. Whipple (1929) (California):
posted by jedicus at 10:22 AM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
No, not really. From the treatise Wharton's Criminal Law:
Lord Bacon long ago stated that "if a man steals viands to satisfy his present hunger, this is no felony nor larceny." This is probably an overstatement of present law, except for such extreme circumstances as voyagers lost at sea who break open cargo to obtain food or mountain climbers caught in a storm who break into a cabin to obtain refuge and food.(emphasis added).
Most of the actual case law is from the Great Depression era. For example, State v. Moe (1933) (Washington) and People v. Whipple (1929) (California):
For example, take the extreme case of a man burglarizing a bakery for the sole purpose of procuring bread for his starving babes. Even in such dire circumstances, so far as the particular offense is concerned, the law itself is powerless to accept the excuse.The consensus seems to be that it would be a mitigating factor at sentencing, but it would not be a defense.
posted by jedicus at 10:22 AM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
A good ruling or will this follow that brutal natural "law of unintended consequences"?
I certainly have little sympathy for the giant food corporations but certainly smaller shops have slim margins. If the de facto rule becomes, 'I'm really hungry, I'll be noshing for a bit', at some point entry to small store may require a deposit. Or worst, a swipe on entry policy.
Then where was that post that had stats of some incredible percentage of food is just thrown out?
But it's not even that, it does seem that the early effects ecological disaster is spawning mass migrations, if the horrors of inhumanity bothers, well, unsubscribe to all news publications, starting about now.
posted by sammyo at 10:34 AM on May 3, 2016
I certainly have little sympathy for the giant food corporations but certainly smaller shops have slim margins. If the de facto rule becomes, 'I'm really hungry, I'll be noshing for a bit', at some point entry to small store may require a deposit. Or worst, a swipe on entry policy.
Then where was that post that had stats of some incredible percentage of food is just thrown out?
But it's not even that, it does seem that the early effects ecological disaster is spawning mass migrations, if the horrors of inhumanity bothers, well, unsubscribe to all news publications, starting about now.
posted by sammyo at 10:34 AM on May 3, 2016
I am certain that a good thing comes from this, if only I can look carefully enough to see it.
We presume that he was fed while he was incarcerated; now the charges have been obviated by his motive. It would seem that the right thing was done, twice. The other hungry guys didn't steal anything (no doubt their souls will be fed in heaven). Have we come in through the kitchen window to violate the common?
Or maybe we've somehow allowed the common to violate us. I'm pretty sure the Italians aren't going to send anybody to Australia. (they still are trying to figure out the Syrians), so I guess it's hypothetical cake for all these people.
I have run the gamut of perspectives from A to B. So, cutting to the chase, is this okay or not?
posted by mule98J at 10:36 AM on May 3, 2016
We presume that he was fed while he was incarcerated; now the charges have been obviated by his motive. It would seem that the right thing was done, twice. The other hungry guys didn't steal anything (no doubt their souls will be fed in heaven). Have we come in through the kitchen window to violate the common?
Or maybe we've somehow allowed the common to violate us. I'm pretty sure the Italians aren't going to send anybody to Australia. (they still are trying to figure out the Syrians), so I guess it's hypothetical cake for all these people.
I have run the gamut of perspectives from A to B. So, cutting to the chase, is this okay or not?
posted by mule98J at 10:36 AM on May 3, 2016
It would seem more logical to convict and impose a zero sentence.
posted by Segundus at 10:40 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by Segundus at 10:40 AM on May 3, 2016
It would seem more logical to convict and impose a zero sentence.
Then that man will have a conviction on his record forever, which may preclude him from future government benefits or a decent job. Even if the sentence is zero or time already served, the consequences of a conviction can be dire. I applaud the Italian Supreme Court's compassion in this ruling.
posted by cynical pinnacle at 10:54 AM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Then that man will have a conviction on his record forever, which may preclude him from future government benefits or a decent job. Even if the sentence is zero or time already served, the consequences of a conviction can be dire. I applaud the Italian Supreme Court's compassion in this ruling.
posted by cynical pinnacle at 10:54 AM on May 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
The guy tried to steal $4.50 worth of food. Why did this reach the courts in the first place? Why would you put someone in jail for six months over that?
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:05 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:05 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes it is obviously compassionate not to convict a person for stealing $5 worth of food.
It is economically wise not to house and feed a person for 6 months for stealing $5 worth of foods.
However what is the store suppose to when word goes out and 10 or 100 or 1000 people show up to steal?
$5 isn't a huge deal for most stores (although for some it could be) but what when the amount stolen is $50? $500? $5000?
And what about individuals? Can someone steal the judge's lunch? Can 10 people steal the all the judges' lunches
How do stores/police determine who is starving and who is merely hungry?
Is a restaurant suppose to just accept a crowd of people coming into their buffet/salad bar none of whom pay and who also cause paying customers to leave - or to join in on the free-for-all?
A wonderful compassionate idea in theory. In reality I imagine it could be very problematic by being publicized.
posted by 2manyusernames at 11:17 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is economically wise not to house and feed a person for 6 months for stealing $5 worth of foods.
However what is the store suppose to when word goes out and 10 or 100 or 1000 people show up to steal?
$5 isn't a huge deal for most stores (although for some it could be) but what when the amount stolen is $50? $500? $5000?
And what about individuals? Can someone steal the judge's lunch? Can 10 people steal the all the judges' lunches
How do stores/police determine who is starving and who is merely hungry?
Is a restaurant suppose to just accept a crowd of people coming into their buffet/salad bar none of whom pay and who also cause paying customers to leave - or to join in on the free-for-all?
A wonderful compassionate idea in theory. In reality I imagine it could be very problematic by being publicized.
posted by 2manyusernames at 11:17 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
However what is the store suppose to when word goes out and 10 or 100 or 1000 people show up to steal?
Do you really think this ruling is going to cause a thousandfold increase in shoplifting rates?
More to the point, if there are so many starving people on the streets of Italy that such an increase really is conceivable, maybe it's time for society at large to start finding easier ways for people to feed themselves than by lifting a sausage from a supermarket.
Anyway, I would think that the bigger effect of the ruling would be to signal to stores and police that they shouldn't waste the court's time on cases like this. Let the loss prevention departments handle it.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 12:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do you really think this ruling is going to cause a thousandfold increase in shoplifting rates?
More to the point, if there are so many starving people on the streets of Italy that such an increase really is conceivable, maybe it's time for society at large to start finding easier ways for people to feed themselves than by lifting a sausage from a supermarket.
Anyway, I would think that the bigger effect of the ruling would be to signal to stores and police that they shouldn't waste the court's time on cases like this. Let the loss prevention departments handle it.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 12:13 PM on May 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Why did this reach the courts in the first place?
Because some people are dickheads? Apparently the man was trying to pay for one pack of grissini while hiding the rest and this was noticed by a customer, who alerted the shop owners, who in turn called the carabinieri.
That’s at least two levels (if not three) where humans could have been more human, and more rational (nevermind the cost of three levels of proceedings).
This reminds me in part of the case of the German supermarket cashier who was fired for stealing €1.30 Euros cash - she was "apparently turned in by a co-worker". Except the courts were a lot more strict.
One of the editorials linked in the Italian press mentions how this is different from the 70s "esproprio proletario" (proletarian expropriation) which was a form of organized political protest/civil disobedience (which that editorial sternly condemns and derides as something that was done by young protesters who came from wealthy bourgeois families as an act of defiance etc etc yawn).
But that’s an interesting parallel in itself, because in the end even if the motive is different, you could interpret the sentence in a way that would be supportive of the principle of expropriation. In general/political terms at least, if not legally.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because some people are dickheads? Apparently the man was trying to pay for one pack of grissini while hiding the rest and this was noticed by a customer, who alerted the shop owners, who in turn called the carabinieri.
That’s at least two levels (if not three) where humans could have been more human, and more rational (nevermind the cost of three levels of proceedings).
This reminds me in part of the case of the German supermarket cashier who was fired for stealing €1.30 Euros cash - she was "apparently turned in by a co-worker". Except the courts were a lot more strict.
One of the editorials linked in the Italian press mentions how this is different from the 70s "esproprio proletario" (proletarian expropriation) which was a form of organized political protest/civil disobedience (which that editorial sternly condemns and derides as something that was done by young protesters who came from wealthy bourgeois families as an act of defiance etc etc yawn).
But that’s an interesting parallel in itself, because in the end even if the motive is different, you could interpret the sentence in a way that would be supportive of the principle of expropriation. In general/political terms at least, if not legally.
posted by bitteschoen at 1:08 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
More to the point, if there are so many starving people on the streets of Italy that such an increase really is conceivable, maybe it's time for society at large to start finding easier ways for people to feed themselves than by lifting a sausage from a supermarket.
Just for the record, there are shelters and canteens for the homeless in Italy too, including in Genoa. (The canteens are not only for the homeless actually, for anyone who lives in poverty even if they have a roof on their heads).
posted by bitteschoen at 1:21 PM on May 3, 2016
Just for the record, there are shelters and canteens for the homeless in Italy too, including in Genoa. (The canteens are not only for the homeless actually, for anyone who lives in poverty even if they have a roof on their heads).
posted by bitteschoen at 1:21 PM on May 3, 2016
However what is the store suppose to when word goes out and 10 or 100 or 1000 people show up to steal?
I am certain that this already happens hundreds, maybe thousands of times a day, and the end times are not upon us. People get caught shoplifting, and store owners often use their common sense to decide when to call the police, versus when to take back their goods and kick the thief out of the shop.
posted by Joh at 4:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am certain that this already happens hundreds, maybe thousands of times a day, and the end times are not upon us. People get caught shoplifting, and store owners often use their common sense to decide when to call the police, versus when to take back their goods and kick the thief out of the shop.
posted by Joh at 4:36 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older “Everybody wants to own the end of the world.” | Virgil Brigman Back On The Air Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
2. Valjean only served five years for stealing the bread. The rest was because he tried to run. Yes, 24061.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:22 AM on May 3, 2016 [22 favorites]