27 August 2010
Some Changes
Well, some changes were needed, so I made them. We'll see what way this goes. We should keep the TEXTS READaBLE.
On the tag I have added a few names. Maybe searchengines will pick that up and will bring some responses....
On the tag I have added a few names. Maybe searchengines will pick that up and will bring some responses....
Thoughts on spam and spumante
I've never been a great one for alcohol. I mean, I like to drink it and I don't mind getting drunk, but it isn't the main thing that crosses my mind when I go out. I CAN go out and have a good time without drinking and I CAN go out and have a good time with drinking, but not getting drunk. What I can't understand is the people who still go out, with the express and ONLY purpose of getting drunk.
Why?
Seriously, why?
What's the point in doing something like that? Why go out? Why not just buy a slab and drink it at home? Is it the fact that this sort of thing is often frowned upon that it's not done? Is it the so called, bonding with your fellow man? Why do you care, you're only there to get drunk anyway? And why should they care? They don't want a stupid drunk fucking up their night.
But every weekend - hell - every night it happens somewhere. People going out just to get drunk, then stumbling home and doing it all again the next night.
Just admit you're a fucking alcoholic and get it over with. At least you'll finally be honest. Embrace it man! What have you got to lose?
Why?
Seriously, why?
What's the point in doing something like that? Why go out? Why not just buy a slab and drink it at home? Is it the fact that this sort of thing is often frowned upon that it's not done? Is it the so called, bonding with your fellow man? Why do you care, you're only there to get drunk anyway? And why should they care? They don't want a stupid drunk fucking up their night.
But every weekend - hell - every night it happens somewhere. People going out just to get drunk, then stumbling home and doing it all again the next night.
Just admit you're a fucking alcoholic and get it over with. At least you'll finally be honest. Embrace it man! What have you got to lose?
26 August 2010
Man up
It's not until it's pointed out, that you realise just how big the gulf is between the amateur and the professional. Between those who have talent and those - like me - who have none. I always wish I'd been told earlier in my life that I had no talent; that way, I wouldn't have wasted the previous twenty eight years on a failed dream.
But, like most people with no talent, it's taken me until now to realise that I indeed, have no talent. If I had been told (and, truth be told, I had) that I had no talent when I was 21, I wouldn't have believed you anyway. I would've thought you didn't know what you were talking about and of course I had talent.
Sadly though, I now know the truth. Which has made my life a hell of a lot easier, I must say. And that's not being self deprecating or anything. I truly don't have any talent. But, I do have this. So, I suppose that's something.
But, like most people with no talent, it's taken me until now to realise that I indeed, have no talent. If I had been told (and, truth be told, I had) that I had no talent when I was 21, I wouldn't have believed you anyway. I would've thought you didn't know what you were talking about and of course I had talent.
Sadly though, I now know the truth. Which has made my life a hell of a lot easier, I must say. And that's not being self deprecating or anything. I truly don't have any talent. But, I do have this. So, I suppose that's something.
Mededeler was here too!!! Breaking news!!! Millionth giraffe reached!!!
The deadline was December 31st 2010. Though July 17th it already was noticed that people were drawing too fast.
Yesterday August 24th, late at night, the 1000,000th giraffe has been reached.
See which giraffe made it possible on this blog.
We all like to congratulate Ola, and refer all ex-giraffe painters and drawers to other mail art projects.
Yesterday August 24th, late at night, the 1000,000th giraffe has been reached.
See which giraffe made it possible on this blog.
We all like to congratulate Ola, and refer all ex-giraffe painters and drawers to other mail art projects.
Just like Abbie says, we will steal you.
As if and when. Fortune's folly. Does anyone here realize Jane Austen refers to the Queen's claque[u]rs in "Pride and Prejudice"? Well, maybe she doesn't, but the movie that plays on the Pride and Prejudice book "Lost in Austen" uses the phrase.
Blog Claque[u]rs all!! Let us applaud ourselves. What is the sound of one blog blogging? shhhhhhhhhh! hush!!! Listen... is that your computer's fan or is it the silent song of your blog blogging??
I remain in your creative debt.
Valerie MacEwan
Blog Claque[u]rs all!! Let us applaud ourselves. What is the sound of one blog blogging? shhhhhhhhhh! hush!!! Listen... is that your computer's fan or is it the silent song of your blog blogging??
I remain in your creative debt.
Valerie MacEwan
25 August 2010
Stealing - Theft
Theft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
"Stealing" redirects here. For other uses, see Steal (disambiguation).
"Thief" redirects here. For other uses, see Thief (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Theft (disambiguation).
A young waif steals a pair of boots.In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.
Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief, and the act of theft is known as stealing, thieving, or sometimes filching.
Contents [hide]
1 Elements
2 By region
2.1 Theft in English law
2.2 Victoria, Australia
2.2.1 Actus reus
2.2.2 Mens rea
2.3 United States
2.4 Canada
2.5 West Indies
2.6 Romania
3 Notes
4 References
5 See also
Elements
Criminal law
Part of the common law series
Element (criminal law)
Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious
Inchoate offenses
Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation
Offence against the person
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assault
Homicide crimes
Murder · Felony murder
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Crimes against property
Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Receiving stolen property
Robbery · Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justice
Defenses to liability
Defense of self
Defence of property
Consent · Diminished responsibility
Duress · Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy · Insanity
Intoxication defense
Justification · Mistake (of law)
Necessity · Provocation
Other common law areas
Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice · Law
v • d • e
Bicycles can occasionally be stolen, even when locked up, by removing the wheel or cutting the lock that holds them.The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
By region
Theft in English law
In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:
Section 2 dishonesty;
Section 3 "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way;
Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property.
Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:
ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:
possession is where a person is only because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:
did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.
what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.
Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.
The maximum sentence in the Crown Court is seven years (section 7).
If the act of stealing is already complete before another comes into possession of the goods, this may be handling. For alternative charges involving deceptions, see the deception offences and the Theft Act 1978 which may overlap with s1 Theft. For the theft of motor vehicles with or without violence, see robbery, blackmail and TWOC.
Victoria, Australia
Theft is defined at s.72 of the Crimes Act 1958. The actus reus and mens rea are defined as follows:
Actus reus
Appropriation - defined at s.73(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 as the assumption of any of the owners rights. It does not have be all the owner's rights, as long as at least one right has been assumed(Stein v Henshall). If the owner gave their consent to the appropriation there cannot be an appropriation(Baruday v R). However, if this consent is obtained by deception, this consent is vitiated.
Property - defined at s.71(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as being both tangible property, including money and intangible property. Information has been held not be property(Oxford v Moss).
Belonging to another - s.73(5) that property belongs to another if that person has ownership, possession, or a proprietary interest in the property. Property can belong to more than one person. s.73(9) & s.73(10) deal with situations where the accused receives property under an obligation or by mistake.
Mens rea
Intention to permanently deprive - defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Dishonestly - s.73(2) creates a negative definition of the term 'dishonestly'. The section deems only three circumstances when the accused is deemed to have been acting honestly. These are a belief in a legal claim of right (s.73(2)(a)), a belief that the owner would have consented (s.73(2)(b)), or a belief the owner could not be found(s.73(2)(c))
United States
In the U.S., plenary regulation of theft exists only at the state level, in the sense that most thefts by default will be prosecuted by the state in which the theft occurred. The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft which directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce.
Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offence,[1] some have now adopted theft provisions.
For example, California's Theft Act of 1927 consolidated a variety of common law crimes into theft. The state now distinguishes between two types of theft, grand theft and petty theft.[2] Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $400 (it can be money, labor or property),[3] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[4] Grand theft is punishable by up to a year in jail or prison, and may be charged (depending upon the circumstances) as a misdemeanor or felony.[5] while petty theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or six months in jail.[6] As for the older crimes of embezzlement, larceny, and stealing, any preexisting references to them now mean theft instead.[7]
In many states, grand theft of a vehicle is charged as "grand theft auto" (see motor vehicle theft for more information).
Repeated offenders who continue to steal may become subject to life imprisonment in certain states. [8]
Canada
Vehicle with broken window.Theft is dealt with by Part 9 of the Criminal Code of Canada which is the part that covers property crime. Section 322 in Part 9 creates a general definition of theft, while other sections such as section 326 (which deals with the theft of gas, electricity and telecommunication services) define special kinds of theft. According to the general definition in section 322 a person steals a thing if he or she takes or converts it fraudulently, without colour of right and with intent to deprive the owner of it, either permanently or temporarily. For the purposes of punishment theft is divided into two separate offences by section 334 depending on the value and nature of the goods stolen. If the thing stolen is worth more than $5000 or is a testamentary instrument the offence is commonly referred to as Theft Over $5000 and is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment. Where the stolen item is not a testamentary instrument and is not worth more than $5000 it is known as Theft Under $5000 and is a hybrid offence, meaning that it can be treated either as an indictable offence or a less serious summary conviction offence, depending on the choice of the prosecutor. If dealt with as an indictable offence Theft Under $5000 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years and, if treated as a summary conviction offence, 6 months imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both.
West Indies
In the British West Indies, especially Grenada, there have been a spate of large-scale thefts of tons of sand from beaches.[9] Both Grenada and Jamaica are considering increasing fines and jail time for the thefts.[9]
Romania
By the Romanian Penal Code for theft (furt) a person can face a penalty ranging from 1 to 20 years.
Degrees of theft:
A: Theft (1 to 12 years)
When a person steals a thing, or uses a vehicle without permission and no aggravating circumstances applies.
B: Qualified theft (basically 3 to 15 years but there can be special cases when penalty range is from 4 to 18 years and even 10 to 20 years)
Aggravating circumstances - 3 to 15 years: a) by two or more persons together b) by a person who detains a gun or a narcotic substance c) by a masked or disguised person d) against a person who is in impossibility of self defence e) in a public place f) in a public transportation vehicle g) during the night h) during a natural disaster i) by effraction, or by using an original or copyed key j) things belongs to the cultural patrimonium k) stealing official identity papers with intention to make use of them l) stealing official identity badges with intention to make use of them
Aggravating circumstances - 4 to 18 years : a) stealing petrol based products directly from transportation pipes and vehicles or deposits b) stealing components from national electrification, telecommunication, irrigation networks or from any type of navigational system c) stealing a public alertation device d) stealing a public intervention vehicle or device e) when periclitating the safety of public transportation.
Aggravating circumstances - 10 to 20 years : When the consequences are extremely grave and affects some public institutions or the material prejudice is over 200.000 RON (Approximately 80.000 USD).
Notes
1.^ See, e.g., N.Y. Penal law sections 155.00-155.45, found at NY Assembly official web site. Accessed March 17, 2008.
2.^ California Penal Code Section 486. For the entire portion of the Penal Code covering theft, see Sections 484 through 502.9 at Findlaw.
3.^ California Penal Code Section 487.
4.^ California Penal Code Section 488.
5.^ California Penal Code Section 489.
6.^ California Penal Code Section 490.
7.^ California Penal Code Section 490a.
8.^ See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding life sentence for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, and obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses) and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding sentence of 50 years to life for stealing videotapes on two separate occasions).
9.^ a b AP, "Sand stolen across Caribbean for construction: 'We will lose our beaches' unless crime is taken seriously, one official says", found at MSNBC article. Accessed Octiber 27, 2008.
References
Allen, Michael. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (2005) ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
Criminal Law Revision Committee. 8th Report. Theft and Related Offences. Cmnd. 2977
Griew, Edward. Theft Acts 1968 & 1978, Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-19960-1
Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis, London. (2005) ISBN 0-406-97730-5
Maniscalco, Fabio, Theft of Art (in Italian), Naples - Massa (2000) ISBN 88-87835-00-4
Smith, J. C. Law of Theft, LexisNexis: London. (1997) ISBN 0-406-89545-7.
See also
Look up pilferage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Anti-theft system
Asset management (corporate theft prevention)
Confidence trick
Counterfeit
Credit card fraud
Dishonesty
Fence (criminal)
Force-initiation
Fraud
Larceny
Money laundering
Organized crime
Pickpocketing
Secret profit
Skimming (casinos)
White-collar crime
Specific forms of theft and other related offences
Art theft
Bank robbery
Bandwidth theft
Carjacking
Computer crime
Copyright infringement
Data theft
Economic Espionage Act of 1996
Embezzlement
Espionage
Extortion
Identity theft
Kidnapping
Laptop theft
Metal theft
Motor vehicle theft
Organized retail crime
Package pilferage
Plagiarism
Piracy
Receipt of stolen property
Street sign theft
Tax evasion
Theft of services
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
"Stealing" redirects here. For other uses, see Steal (disambiguation).
"Thief" redirects here. For other uses, see Thief (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Theft (disambiguation).
A young waif steals a pair of boots.In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.
Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief, and the act of theft is known as stealing, thieving, or sometimes filching.
Contents [hide]
1 Elements
2 By region
2.1 Theft in English law
2.2 Victoria, Australia
2.2.1 Actus reus
2.2.2 Mens rea
2.3 United States
2.4 Canada
2.5 West Indies
2.6 Romania
3 Notes
4 References
5 See also
Elements
Criminal law
Part of the common law series
Element (criminal law)
Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious
Inchoate offenses
Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation
Offence against the person
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assault
Homicide crimes
Murder · Felony murder
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Crimes against property
Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Receiving stolen property
Robbery · Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justice
Defenses to liability
Defense of self
Defence of property
Consent · Diminished responsibility
Duress · Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy · Insanity
Intoxication defense
Justification · Mistake (of law)
Necessity · Provocation
Other common law areas
Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice · Law
v • d • e
Bicycles can occasionally be stolen, even when locked up, by removing the wheel or cutting the lock that holds them.The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
By region
Theft in English law
In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:
Section 2 dishonesty;
Section 3 "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way;
Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property.
Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:
ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:
possession is where a person is only because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:
did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.
what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.
Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.
The maximum sentence in the Crown Court is seven years (section 7).
If the act of stealing is already complete before another comes into possession of the goods, this may be handling. For alternative charges involving deceptions, see the deception offences and the Theft Act 1978 which may overlap with s1 Theft. For the theft of motor vehicles with or without violence, see robbery, blackmail and TWOC.
Victoria, Australia
Theft is defined at s.72 of the Crimes Act 1958. The actus reus and mens rea are defined as follows:
Actus reus
Appropriation - defined at s.73(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 as the assumption of any of the owners rights. It does not have be all the owner's rights, as long as at least one right has been assumed(Stein v Henshall). If the owner gave their consent to the appropriation there cannot be an appropriation(Baruday v R). However, if this consent is obtained by deception, this consent is vitiated.
Property - defined at s.71(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as being both tangible property, including money and intangible property. Information has been held not be property(Oxford v Moss).
Belonging to another - s.73(5) that property belongs to another if that person has ownership, possession, or a proprietary interest in the property. Property can belong to more than one person. s.73(9) & s.73(10) deal with situations where the accused receives property under an obligation or by mistake.
Mens rea
Intention to permanently deprive - defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Dishonestly - s.73(2) creates a negative definition of the term 'dishonestly'. The section deems only three circumstances when the accused is deemed to have been acting honestly. These are a belief in a legal claim of right (s.73(2)(a)), a belief that the owner would have consented (s.73(2)(b)), or a belief the owner could not be found(s.73(2)(c))
United States
In the U.S., plenary regulation of theft exists only at the state level, in the sense that most thefts by default will be prosecuted by the state in which the theft occurred. The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft which directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce.
Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offence,[1] some have now adopted theft provisions.
For example, California's Theft Act of 1927 consolidated a variety of common law crimes into theft. The state now distinguishes between two types of theft, grand theft and petty theft.[2] Grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $400 (it can be money, labor or property),[3] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[4] Grand theft is punishable by up to a year in jail or prison, and may be charged (depending upon the circumstances) as a misdemeanor or felony.[5] while petty theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or six months in jail.[6] As for the older crimes of embezzlement, larceny, and stealing, any preexisting references to them now mean theft instead.[7]
In many states, grand theft of a vehicle is charged as "grand theft auto" (see motor vehicle theft for more information).
Repeated offenders who continue to steal may become subject to life imprisonment in certain states. [8]
Canada
Vehicle with broken window.Theft is dealt with by Part 9 of the Criminal Code of Canada which is the part that covers property crime. Section 322 in Part 9 creates a general definition of theft, while other sections such as section 326 (which deals with the theft of gas, electricity and telecommunication services) define special kinds of theft. According to the general definition in section 322 a person steals a thing if he or she takes or converts it fraudulently, without colour of right and with intent to deprive the owner of it, either permanently or temporarily. For the purposes of punishment theft is divided into two separate offences by section 334 depending on the value and nature of the goods stolen. If the thing stolen is worth more than $5000 or is a testamentary instrument the offence is commonly referred to as Theft Over $5000 and is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment. Where the stolen item is not a testamentary instrument and is not worth more than $5000 it is known as Theft Under $5000 and is a hybrid offence, meaning that it can be treated either as an indictable offence or a less serious summary conviction offence, depending on the choice of the prosecutor. If dealt with as an indictable offence Theft Under $5000 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years and, if treated as a summary conviction offence, 6 months imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both.
West Indies
In the British West Indies, especially Grenada, there have been a spate of large-scale thefts of tons of sand from beaches.[9] Both Grenada and Jamaica are considering increasing fines and jail time for the thefts.[9]
Romania
By the Romanian Penal Code for theft (furt) a person can face a penalty ranging from 1 to 20 years.
Degrees of theft:
A: Theft (1 to 12 years)
When a person steals a thing, or uses a vehicle without permission and no aggravating circumstances applies.
B: Qualified theft (basically 3 to 15 years but there can be special cases when penalty range is from 4 to 18 years and even 10 to 20 years)
Aggravating circumstances - 3 to 15 years: a) by two or more persons together b) by a person who detains a gun or a narcotic substance c) by a masked or disguised person d) against a person who is in impossibility of self defence e) in a public place f) in a public transportation vehicle g) during the night h) during a natural disaster i) by effraction, or by using an original or copyed key j) things belongs to the cultural patrimonium k) stealing official identity papers with intention to make use of them l) stealing official identity badges with intention to make use of them
Aggravating circumstances - 4 to 18 years : a) stealing petrol based products directly from transportation pipes and vehicles or deposits b) stealing components from national electrification, telecommunication, irrigation networks or from any type of navigational system c) stealing a public alertation device d) stealing a public intervention vehicle or device e) when periclitating the safety of public transportation.
Aggravating circumstances - 10 to 20 years : When the consequences are extremely grave and affects some public institutions or the material prejudice is over 200.000 RON (Approximately 80.000 USD).
Notes
1.^ See, e.g., N.Y. Penal law sections 155.00-155.45, found at NY Assembly official web site. Accessed March 17, 2008.
2.^ California Penal Code Section 486. For the entire portion of the Penal Code covering theft, see Sections 484 through 502.9 at Findlaw.
3.^ California Penal Code Section 487.
4.^ California Penal Code Section 488.
5.^ California Penal Code Section 489.
6.^ California Penal Code Section 490.
7.^ California Penal Code Section 490a.
8.^ See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding life sentence for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, and obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses) and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding sentence of 50 years to life for stealing videotapes on two separate occasions).
9.^ a b AP, "Sand stolen across Caribbean for construction: 'We will lose our beaches' unless crime is taken seriously, one official says", found at MSNBC article. Accessed Octiber 27, 2008.
References
Allen, Michael. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (2005) ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
Criminal Law Revision Committee. 8th Report. Theft and Related Offences. Cmnd. 2977
Griew, Edward. Theft Acts 1968 & 1978, Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-19960-1
Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis, London. (2005) ISBN 0-406-97730-5
Maniscalco, Fabio, Theft of Art (in Italian), Naples - Massa (2000) ISBN 88-87835-00-4
Smith, J. C. Law of Theft, LexisNexis: London. (1997) ISBN 0-406-89545-7.
See also
Look up pilferage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Anti-theft system
Asset management (corporate theft prevention)
Confidence trick
Counterfeit
Credit card fraud
Dishonesty
Fence (criminal)
Force-initiation
Fraud
Larceny
Money laundering
Organized crime
Pickpocketing
Secret profit
Skimming (casinos)
White-collar crime
Specific forms of theft and other related offences
Art theft
Bank robbery
Bandwidth theft
Carjacking
Computer crime
Copyright infringement
Data theft
Economic Espionage Act of 1996
Embezzlement
Espionage
Extortion
Identity theft
Kidnapping
Laptop theft
Metal theft
Motor vehicle theft
Organized retail crime
Package pilferage
Plagiarism
Piracy
Receipt of stolen property
Street sign theft
Tax evasion
Theft of services
Advertising this blog
Since I like this concept I advertised the blog on: http://mailartprojects.blogspot.com/ since I consider this a wonderful communication project. We will see if others pick on to this and the number of postings grow. Maybe add a kind of statistics to it. That would work
22 August 2010
Great Idea
Well, I must say it is quite an idea to make a blog like this. As an IUOMA member I've tried to log in and that just works. What I have to say? Well, I actually say a lot on the blogs I have myself and also document all the things I say. Working as an artists using 'communication' as the main medium makes it a very interestingh playfield the last years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)