An Italian court overturned a theft conviction of a homeless man who stole four pounds worth of cheese and sausage from a supermarket. In an opinion column in the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, Massimo Gramellini wrote that the court “reminds everyone that in a civilized country, not even the worst of men should starve.”
It is the most basic of progressive beliefs. No human should starve. There is no such thing as the “undeserving poor” when it comes to basic sustenance.
It’s okay to take food if you need it to survive, whether you are taking a schnitzel from a local grocer or felling a deer on the “King’s lands.” From a philosophical, ethical, and moral standpoint, there can be no “stealing” when you are just trying to get enough to eat. That should be the law of all civilized lands.
But from a legal perspective, that maxim is nigh unworkable. How the hell can you even begin to apply that basic moral principle practically and fairly across a large nation? Just take a look at the court’s core ruling:
The condition of the defendant and the circumstances in which the merchandise theft took place prove that he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of need.
There are practical legal issues that just jump right off the page:
* What constitutes “immediate and essential need”? One would imagine that Jameis Winston did not have an immediate and essential need for crab legs, but where exactly is that line?
* What constitutes “small amount”? Cheese and sausages does seem de minimus. What else falls into that category? Can you steal a steak? Steak tips? Ground beef? Only SPAM? Are you allowed to flavor your food? Can bizzaro homeless Hillary Clinton say “I only stole a piece of fish, and some hot sauce.”
* Does acting “in a state of need” apply to non-food items? Can you steal some underwear? Lord knows I’ve been on the NYC subway and would have authorized the homeless guy to march into a CVS and steal a fresh pair of drawers and some deodorant.
Of course, people should be able to get a little bit of food if they need it. And of course, the law is not really nimble enough to regulate “limited purpose thievery.”
In a civilized, yet legalistic, society, you’d have a social safety net. You’d have FOOD STAMPS that were plentiful and easy to sign up for. You’d make it so nobody had to “steal” food because there would always be an easy way for people to purchase food, regardless of income. And you wouldn’t have asshole Republicans trying to cut back on those programs, or shame the beneficiaries with accusations of indolence and drug addiction.
No human should starve. And no human should have to steal in order to eat. It should be possible to have both in a wealthy nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment