Larceny
Charges against larceny tend to vary between individuals. The definition of larceny might differ between organizations. However, the basic definition remains at the illegal taking away of other people’s property without their knowledge or permission. Although cases, where the goods were taken away, may have been left by their owner irresponsibly or ignored, the investigation has to be done to prove the extent to which the property had been ignored before charges are made. Cases of shoplifting are the most common forms of larceny, and large shops and supermarkets are the most affected institutions. The excuses made by individuals range from forgetting to pay to be unaware of the value possession by the property. The New South Wales laws have specified the specific cases that can be defined as larceny and the specific procedures that should be followed in the case of larceny. Some cases might bring serious dilemma to police when reported as larceny, and the police, therefore, need to be conversant with the larceny laws. A case such as a case study involving supermarket’s misbehaving customers might be difficult to interpret as larceny.
According to the New South Wales laws, the basic definition of larceny is the taking away of property belonging to another owner without the owner’s consent and to defraud the property owner. The taking away involves any slight movement that displaces the property from the position that the owner has chosen to place their property (Ford & Roberts, 2016). The property under discussion should have a value attached to it, and the law specifies that even a piece of paper deemed valuable by the owner should be given the respect it deserves as an individual’s property. The first case involving a child might cause some problems to interpret since getting evidence against the parent’s involvement might be complicated. The conduct of a child inside the supermarket is expected to be the responsibility of the parent. However, a witness appears to have heard a parent agree with the child’s decision to pick some edible property from the shelves and even helps the child in breaking some property for easy edibility. The property in question has been moved, and the individuals have a plan to defraud the supermarket because the value of the goods cannot be accounted for during payment. On yet another occasion, the customers taking some nuts to chew while doing some shopping qualifies to be termed as larceny because the property has value and do not pay at the end of their shopping experience. However, reading of magazines inside the supermarket might be a case of laxity from the supermarket in terms of protecting its property. Magazines should be stored in a way that does not allow inappropriate handling by customers.
The application of LEPRA may appear to be an option if the police are involved in investigating the larceny cases in the supermarket. For example, the individuals under question are only involved in the mishandling of low-value goods, which may not be traceable if allowed to walk out of the supermarket (Roberts, 2017). Although LEPRA could be viewed as applicable to violence cases where individuals are remanded to ensure the safety of the general public from the violent individuals, cases of larceny might also necessitate the application of LEPRA to prevent the offenders from escaping the law. The cases might appear to have minimal impacts on the supermarket’s profits, but a combination of several cases might affect the supermarket hugely and lead it into making significant losses. Therefore, the few noticeable cases should be handled with maximum attention to prevent similar cases from the same offenders or others who could have seen offenders go scot free. For example, the individuals who read magazines and leave them in the poor state should be arrested at the scene of the misbehavior and be taken for questioning. However, the application of LEPRA should not be used as a way to mistreat customers since the supermarkets could lose customers in the process and end up incurring losses.
The cases reported in the study involve low-value property. The conduct of the customers could, in several cases, be seen to be a lack of understanding. For example, the lady who allows her child to eat fruits before paying for them could be ignorant of any serious implications of such an activity. Also, the lady could be prepared to pay for the fruits at the cashier’s desk honestly because her child could be naughty. The other case where cases appear to read magazines could also be motivated by the lack of knowledge on the impacts that such behaviors could have to the supermarket. For example, the ladies could be unaware that customers could complain about the quality of the magazines that have already been read. The police, however, do not have to arrest such offenders. The customers can be made to pay for the goods and receive a warning concerning future misconduct in the supermarket. The lady with the child can be advised on the proper handling of children inside the supermarket. Concerning the ladies who read the magazines and left them in a condition that would cause questioning from interested customers, the police can make them pay for the papers instead of arresting them. The ladies can then be warned to desist from similar misconduct in the future. The New South Wales law on larceny gives an alternative of assessing the offender’s claim of right on the activity accused of in a scene. The police should consider the suspects who present genuine excuses concerning the misunderstanding that could have led to the misconduct.
The revisions made on the ‘LEPRA’ act expanded the conditions under which police may exercise an arrest. Before an arrest is made, police should ensure that the individual has been found committing the act leading to his arrest (Allan, Kelly & Stephenson, 2018). Also, the police should ensure that the arrest is completely necessary and that no alternative is better than an arrest. Some conditions that could make an arrest necessary include the individual’s risk of failing to appear before a court of law and causing harm to the general public. Therefore, the police are required first to assess that the act by the individual has gone against the specifics of the existing laws before proceeding to make an arrest. The case studies provided leave a chance for alternatives to be considered instead of direct arrests. However, if arrests are to be done, the supermarket should be the scene where the arrests are done. For example, arrests could be done for suspects who fail to pay for goods that have already been taken by them. The please should treat the cases of the suspects as attempts to defraud the supermarkets and should arraign the suspects before a court of law for hearing.
The decision to make an arrest should come last after all other alternatives appear ineffective. The first option being the assessment of whether the suspects committed the said crime, the police should ensure that the suspects did not plan to pay for the property taken. If the first option is a failure, then the second option becomes to assess whether the customers were aware of the consequences of the actions. The excuses given by different suspects should be assessed, and the ones that appear genuine should be accepted. However, if the two alternatives do not apply to a suspect, an arrest should be made, and the court left to make a final judgment concerning the fate of the suspects. An arrest should, however, be accompanied with a collection of sufficient evidence since false, or unwarranted arrests could be against the rights of the individuals. Therefore, the arrest comes as the last option due to the weight associated with the consequences of making an arrest.
In sum, the New South Wales act on larceny defines actions that qualify to be treated as larceny. Before an individual is charged with larceny, the property in question should belong to another party, and active movement should have taken place. The case where customers are involved in taking goods from a supermarket without paying is a form of larceny referred to as shoplifting. Larceny can attract legal actions when a suspect is arraigned before a court of law and police are allowed to make arrests when larceny is involved.
References
Ford, L., & Roberts, D. A. (2016). ‘Mr Peel’s Amendments’ in New South Wales: Imperial Criminal Reform in a Distant Penal Colony. The Journal of Legal History, 37(2), 198-214.
Roberts, D. A. (2017). Exile in a Land of Exiles: The Early History of Criminal Transportation Law in New South Wales, 1788–1809. Australian Historical Studies, 48(4), 470-485.
Allan, D. M., Kelly, A., & Stephenson, A. (2018). The prominence of fraud in New South Wales metropolitan media reporting. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(5), 603-619.