If A Looter

[Spicerack]

actually needs the things they loot, should the charges be dropped. (or amended)
As advised by this DA to her prosecutors?
https://the-latest.news/soros-da-diana-becton-requires-officers-consider-whether-a-looter-needed-stolen-goods-before-charging/

[woofgang]

that doesn't look like the most trustworthy or unbiased of websites?

[Mozz71]

The fact that all articles are written by "anonymous" hints towards it being written from someone's basement bedroom.

If it is true, it's ridiculous. Theft is theft.

[Atheist]

Theft is theft, but motive and circumstances can influence juries and sentences.

[Spicerack]

Especially for you, I checked it on Snopes. When you get past the usual strawman they knock over. They confirm the basic facts.

[Spicerack]

Oh yes, mitigation is allowed before sentencing. 'My client is struggling to make ends meet' 'My client hasn't been caught assaulting anyone for 18 months' etc.
But should Prosecutors be dismissing the charges in these circumstances. (for, let's face it, political reasons)

[Buenchico]

There's some sound logic to what's being put forward in that link.

For example, a young mother lives in an area of a city that's being torn apart by riots and she's desperate for food for her crying baby. All of the shops in her area are boarded up and, with riots taking place on the streets, there's no hope of getting anything delivered to her apartment. So, rather than see her baby starve, she risks her life by venturing out onto the streets to try to find some food for it. She comes across a food store that's already been broken into and goes inside to fill her shopping bag with baby food. However she then gets apprehended and charged with 'looting' (which carries a 3 year prison sentence).

To me it makes sense that the charge should either be dropped altogether or, at the very least, lowered down to the 'misdemeanour' level of 'shoplifting'. As I read Spicerack's link, that's all that's being suggested by Ms Becton.

[Spicerack]

It's also the question I asked. Thanks for an answer.

[andy-hughes]

Buenchico's answer speaks to the application of the law depending on circumstances.

It is a slippery slope to start justifying any crime, because every situation is individual, but in the scenario he offers, I would be inclined to take circumstances into account.

The problem arises when each and every defendant has a justification story to tell - and they do, it's built into the job description.

[woofgang]

indeed Andy but surely there is a difference between a bag of food for children and designer clothing/giant TV's and so on?

[andy-hughes]

woofgang - // indeed Andy but surely there is a difference between a bag of food for children and designer clothing/giant TV's and so on? //

Of course - some acts are easier to defend in court than others!

[Old_Geezer]

No. Maybe it's taken into consideration at sentencing.

[woofgang]

the problem with that is the cost to the public and the disruption it can cause to someone's already difficult life. If you can sive out those who are genuinely not looters before taking them through a lengthy court process isn't that a good thing?

[youngmafbog]

"indeed Andy but surely there is a difference between a bag of food for children and designer clothing/giant TV's and so on?"

But not if you spent your money on the designer clothing and had none left for food. And yes, people do this.

[10ClarionSt]

This is how the British used to deal with people who were trying to feed their children.

[1ozzy]

If only they could be shipped to Australia these days
Solve all your problems and ours too.