Wikipedia has a good article [1] with a map showing the different legal systems in use throughout the world.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems
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 still be arrested if caught, and you have to prove you were truly desperate.
The risk of this approach, I fear, is that it could be exploited by clever lawyers as a loophole for people who aren't really all that poor. The truly poor won't be able to afford a lawyer.
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.
It might be different in Italy, though.
How in the world would that work? The amount stolen would have to be only sufficient satisfy your hunger, and presumably they would need to not have obvious other means. Such as funds for a lawyer.
My dad works at grocery store and initially, they were allowed to bring the food home once it expires for a symbolic cost (10% of the price or something). Soon after that, the employees started to hide food so that they can take it home almost for free. So it didn't last long.
As the saying goes, "This is why we can't have nice things."
Nah, it's just basic human nature. Would be really naive to expect something different.
Expired food in many countries ends up in food pantries as the date for canned and dried food has more to do with freshness/taste than actual health issues. So its already being socialized.
I do know of a handful of shops that donate, though. They tend to be much smaller.
Or even petition the government to set one up paid by their taxes.
Consumption in the absence of real production is not sustainable.
At some point the reduction in margins means the shop worker/repairman/etc that would be paid for his work no longer can be supported/afforded, adding to the poor. At some point shop owners, current and would be, would choose not to do business in then-marginal districts of town: the underserved and marginally poor would be more likely to be further underserved and see the balance tip towards poverty.
All things being equal, there is nothing wrong with compassion. But there are other, better ways. This ruling is neither compassionate, moral, nor ultimately effective. When one considers the unseen consequences of this sort of thinking, along with the abandonment of a legitimate purpose of government, in this myopic ruling, one can only marvel at the direction of Italian society.
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
Theft is commonplace in markets and supermarkets. It's calculated into the cost of doing business. Back when I was a teenager working in a supermarket, one store claimed 15% of its revenue was lost to theft every year. (Its prices were also among the highest for any food store, so i'm sure they still did well)
I doubt they'll just let people ransack their stories, but they may decide to be more lenient in terms of calling the cops when they catch them.
Fun anecdote: Working in front of the store, you would sometimes notice people trying to pull scams. The best scam I ever witnessed was over chicken nuggets. There was one guy finishing paying for some food, one cashier, and me bagging the food. Right as this first guy was paying for his food, another came up right behind me and barked in my ear that he couldn't find something in the frozen food aisle. I turned and tried to explain where to find his item. When I turned back around, the last item for the current customer - a box of frozen chicken nuggets - had.... disappeared. Just gone off the counter. The customer was still there, though, and the cashier hadn't seen anything. So we had to get him a new item. It wasn't until he and the distracting guy left that we realized they were working together.
I'm sure their prices could have been lower if they didn't have up to 15% shrinkage as well.
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.
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 nice if they didn't have theft, and had extra money (were you looking for that as a kind of admission of compassion?). But the ability to lower prices does not at all imply that they would.
A great example of the point-and-splutter method of argumentation.
In a greedy capitalist system, the traditional answer to "why in God's name would they lower their prices??!?" is "to sell more stuff". You can reverse the question: why in God's name don't they raise their prices now?!??!?
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.
Lets say, I'm an Italian businessman. I have a vending machine that costs 5,000 euros. Your feel good ruling told all the drug addicts they could smash it for the snacks inside. You arrest them and whether or not you convict them doesn't matter to me because I'm out 5,000 euros now and the government isn't going to reimburse me. I can't sue them because they have no assets.
So yes, there are social consequences here that are not address by the court system.
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 steal bread cooling itself on the window sill. It will involve breaking and entering, fights with the shop owner, collateral damage (a child trampled during a chase), tempers leading to weapons use, etc.
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.
Also, judges are not perfect and are known to make mistakes.
So now a homeless guy reads "Food is free if you're hungry!". He goes... really?? Walks into store. Right away, the store security is eyeballing him, because he's homeless, and the store owner reads the news, too. So now the homeless guy has a decision: since he's being watched even closer now, does he give up early, or make a brazen attempt? He makes the attempt... now the security catches him. "I'm hungry!" he says. "Too bad", security says. They take the food back and call the cops. One court case later, the guy is released. The store still has their goods.
There is plenty of recourse to cover theft (that which already exists and resulted in the guy getting caught the first time), food is not free, insurance doesn't go up. And pricing is already adjusted to offset theft, like I mentioned in another thread. The effect on the bottom-line for markets is nearly zero. Everything is the same as before this judgement, except the prison isn't full of homeless people who can't pay their fines.
Like someone else mentioned, either homeless people will be banned from stores, or they will be scrutinized more, and outdoor markets may retain some new form of controls or increased security. Or their culture will simply adapt to this new way of life, since not every person who can steal will steal (a weird idea for the US, but many foreign cultures work this way).
But there will not be roving gangs of hungry homeless trampling children and busting down stores. Business will not decline from the ravages of the hungry. And in a weird twist of the judgment, if they stole to have food, they'd no longer be hungry, and therefore would be committing crimes again. The judgement's language is very specific about the nature in which this took place and what it means.
Some people thought a similar thing a few years back in the US. The thought was that since sometimes innocent people are injured due to police chases that there should be restrictions on such chases, most of them involved giving up. The leading argument against was that you are essentially telling criminals to always run because the police will break off. I believe cooler heads prevailed that instituted new policies that did not allow such nonsense.
As for your example; do you think the store just returns the attempted stolen item to be placed back on the shelf to sell to another customer? Even if the thief is caught, there is a form of loss due to the product likely being useless to them.
Finally, yes the guy was caught but not punished. That is not necessarily a recourse for the owner of the stolen property, they are still out the stolen property. It's not like the neighbor's kid stealing your bike that can be returned, they can't sell food handled by a thief, security, and or police. If the effect on the bottom-line is nearly zero then why bother trying to prevent theft at all?
And, having known several people who worked in loss prevention, it is well-established that the lion's share of that theft -- both of cash and goods -- is by employees.
Careful with online lawyering, its illegal not to bake a marriage cake for a gay couple, to cite a recent famous example.
If you have questions about the basis for the claim about Finland, you should as the poster several posts upthread who made it.
There certainly is such a law. It's not something to be proud of.
> In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores
> Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."
And US law, using the theory of disparate impact, treats discrimination on basically any category at all as discrimination by race. Barring entry by poor people would be prosecuted as anti-black discrimination seconds after a store tried to do it.