Court of Cassation plays a blinder.


Renzatic

Suspended
I'd say it's still a crime, since this man did deprive someone else of their rightful property. There's still a victim there deserving of redress.

But it's one that can be addressed far more humanely than a stint in the clink, and a permanent blackmark on a criminal record. Justice doesn't have to always be black and white, with clearly defined rules. A truly just system would always consider the mitigating circumstances behind the crime.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,362
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
I'd say it's still a crime, since this man did deprive someone else of their rightful property. There's still a victim there deserving of redress.

But it's one that can be addressed far more humanely than a stint in the clink, and a permanent blackmark on a criminal record. Justice doesn't have to always be black and white, with clearly defined rules. A truly just system would always consider the mitigating circumstances behind the crime.
I disagree as the judgement says,the right to survival trumps the "right" of private property.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,162
So then dine and dash is legal in Italy. What he did is a crime, does he deserve 6months in the joint? No. For a sausage and cheese I would have made the guy sweep the sidewalks in front of the store as punishment.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I disagree as the judgement says,the right to survival trumps the "right" of private property.
Yeah, if you slide down the slippery slope far enough, it is kinda legalizing a free-for-all in certain circumstances. This is why you always have to cross your t's and dot your i's when it comes to the law. You don't want to set a precedence where the homeless can raid grocery stores just because they're hungry.

But it isn't a crime deserving of punishment, just recompense.