Les Miserables Redux: Italian court rules that stealing food if you're poor and hungry not a crime

American Thinker ^ | 05/04/2016 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

This is an interesting ruling, especially the justification used by the Italian high court to throw out the conviction of a homeless man who stole about $7 worth of food from a grocery store.

BBC:

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.

A fellow customer informed the store's security in 2011, when Mr Ostriakov attempted to leave a Genoa supermarket with two pieces of cheese and a packet of sausages in his pocket but paid only for breadsticks.

In 2015, Mr Ostriakov was convicted of theft and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine.

For the judges, the "right to survival prevails over property", said an op-ed in La Stampa newspaper (in Italian).

In times of economic hardship, the court of cassation's judgement "reminds everyone that in a civilised country not even the worst of men should starve".

An opinion piece in Corriere Della Sera says statistics suggest 615 people are added to the ranks of the poor in Italy every day - it was "unthinkable that the law should not take note of reality".

It criticised the fact that a case concerning the taking of goods worth under €5 went through three rounds in the courts before being thrown out.

[Bogey78O]

A crime is a crime.

However punishments should fit them. If he is starving turn him out with a slap on the wrist. If he insists, send him to where he has no risk of starvation with a warm bed and a nice work detail.

[WakeUpAndVote]

This is going to get interesting. Takes free stuff to a whole new level.

[ctdonath2]

Italy is finished.

[TheConservator]

He had no access to social services?

[HamiltonJay]

This isn’t really something new, Mosaic law had the same stipulations... the poor and starving may eat their fill in the fields without punishment etc.

What I find interesting is the guy bought an item, but tried to steal 2 more.... so, was this many truly desperate for food?

I don’t think the story provides enough detail.

[LouAvul]

Well, good. I can stop feeling bad about walking out of Jerry’s Big Boy 50 years ago without paying for that hamburger. After all, I was hungry.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Reminds me of an incident in Haiti many years ago as told by our missionaries there.

They were going through an outdoor market when someone grabbed some food and ran.
Almost immediately the Ton-Ton Macutes were on him and beat him to a pulp.
The missionaries were horrified until a shop owner came out and told them that it was necessary because if ONE PERSON got away with it, everyone would then grab and steal everything within their reach and no one could have a shop.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Reminds me of forty five years ago when hippies would go into a grocery store and begin eating whatever they could get their hands on.

[GOPJ]

Here’s take the candlesticks... you forgot them...

[Pollster1]

Wrong ruling. He committed a serious crime and should go to prison. If the Italian government does not like that outcome, they should change their welfare system to feed people like this thief, but store owners should not be the welfare system.

Several friends of mine have gone bankrupt when their retail stores lost money to shoplifters. Judges should not encourage theft or any other crime.

[I want the USA back]

According to longstanding Catholic teaching, a person can steal food if there is no other recourse, and he would otherwise die. Today, there are many resources available to the destitute. All civilized countries have generous benefits for the poor. There is no longer any reason for someone to steal. However, some individuals may not have the mental capacity to know what they should do, and so they should not be charged with a crime, but referred to the social services.

[SgtHooper]

How about a truckload? U-Haul full? Back seat full?

[Mrs. Don-o]

This homeless man had four or five legal options to get food:

1. earn it
2. get it from public welfare
3. get it from private or church charity
4. scavenge it (dumpster diving)
5. panhandling (street begging). Three, four, or all five of these options are lawful or treated as lawful --- the cops generally won't stop you.

As I remember reading from a firsthand colonial account, the hungry English settlers at the Plymouth colony took foods they found in baskets at some sort of Indian cache left there for the purpose of provisioning Indian hunting parties. They intended to pay it back when they could--- and they did.

So I agree in principle that a starving person can take food if he or his family are otherwise going hungry, AND if he has no other lawful options.

I do feel sorry for the poor man. I've worked with homeless people and they are so often addled and ill, or even quite mentally incapacitated. But it sounds like this was not the case with the bread&sausage man. He would've been better off if he'd been jailed... As you yourself mentioned. Three hots and a cot.