Country May Decriminalize Theft for the Hungry (Venezuela)

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Thou shalt not steal, say the Ten Commandments, but it might eventually no longer apply if you are starving in Venezuela.

The poor, oil-rich nation is considering decriminalizing the theft of food and medicine in cases where a thief is motivated by extreme hunger or need.

Supreme Court Judge Alejandro Angulo Fontiveros told Reuters on Wednesday that the so-called "famine theft" clause should be part of a broad penal code reform measure for humanitarian reasons.

"This is a guide for judges to avoid injustice," said Fontiveros, who is in charge of drafting the reforms. "They lock up for years a poor person who lives in atrocious misery and what they need is medicine."

Under Fontiveros' proposal to the Supreme Court, those who take food, medicine or inexpensive goods without using violence to ease hunger caused by prolonged, extreme poverty would not be punished.

To eventually become law, the proposal must pass through the Supreme Court and be approved by a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.

Critics say the initiative will fuel crime in a country mired in a recession and where police last year reported an average of 25 murders a day and thousands of robberies a month.

Supporters dismiss fears it will become a license to rob, saying the proposed law would apply only to nonviolent crimes.

Two thirds of Venezuela's 25 million people are poor and a third of those cannot afford their basic food needs despite the nation's huge oil wealth, according to government figures.

The penal reform effort has sparked more controversy by also including possible decriminalization of abortion and allowing voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill.

Chávez allies pushing bill to pack court***CARACAS - Frustrated by opposition delays, congressional supporters of President Hugo Chávez are pushing for new rules to expedite a bill allowing him to pack the Supreme Court -- which might rule on a drive to recall the president.

Approval of the bill would allow the leftist populist president to get his way in the courts, including blocking or delaying the referendum by filing any number of appeals against the process, without having to violate the constitution to remain in power.

''The judicial system is pyramidal and centralized,'' said Gerardo Blyde, a constitutional lawyer and legislator for the opposition Justice First party, ``The Supreme Court is at the top. Political domination of the court would result in political domination of the entire judiciary.''

The 20-member Supreme Court appears almost evenly divided between Chávez supporters and critics. The justices have occasionally ruled in favor of an opposition movement that claims to have collected some 3.4 million signatures demanding a recall vote against the president.

The Chavistas' push for new rules that would speed up consideration of the bill came at an extremely sensitive time. Venezuela waits on tenterhooks for the National Electoral Council to rule whether the opposition has enough valid signatures in December to force a referendum.

The new rules proposed for the legislative National Assembly, the seventh reform of procedures since Chávez supporters won control of the assembly in 1999, would limit severely the number of speakers in any debate and further hobble the opposition's ability to use procedural delaying tactics.

The new rules can be approved by a simple majority in the 165-member assembly where Chávez's supporters have a five-seat majority.***

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.