When is theft acceptable?

At the beginning of May this year, the UK media took note of an unusual case in Italy’s highest court – a homeless man originally found guilty of theft, and sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine, was acquitted. The new verdict determined that as he had only stolen a small amount of food because he was desperately hungry, he had not committed a crime.

Compare this to a UK story that caught my eye a few years ago, when two men plead guilty in court to charges of stealing vegetables from a local allotment site. They were conditionally discharged, and ordered to pay £20 compensation and £85 costs. These two men were also living in poverty, unable to work due to injury and dependent on benefits. They had mouths to feed at home. I have no idea how they would have been able to pay their fines.

Newspaper reports made a lot of a ‘comic’ aspect of the case – the men were caught in the act, and the vegetables they had stolen were put into an ID parade so that the allotment holders could try to identify which were theirs. Which, of course, reminds us that theft is not a victimless crime. Those allotment holders had worked hard to grow their vegetables and would have been furious to see them disappear. Although, had they been asked, many would no doubt have been happy to share their surplus with anyone in need.

We all pay the price of theft, as businesses need to charge higher prices to offset losses, and insurance premiums are raised when you make a claim. But we also all have a responsibility to care for the portion of society that – for whatever reason – is unable to care for itself. Very few of us would watch someone starve, and we all contribute, via our taxes, and our charitable donations, to feeding the hungry. Churches