Should Reason for Theft Be Considered When Giving Penalty? - Research Paper

Introduction

Stealing is immoral and against the ethics of society. It is illegal to take the possessions of another person or organization without their consent. People steal for various reasons. In most cases, people steal without any justifiable reasons, but there are few cases when stealing could be for a good reason. There have been debates on whether stealing is justifiable. Some people believe that stealing is wrong but not all stealing is bad (Peters, 24). In other words, when one has a good reason for stealing, then they can be exonerated for their actions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

For instance, Apple Inc. one of the biggest companies in the world always stole great ideas, an accusation that Steve Jobs once admitted in a documentary. It stole the idea of Braun speakers and ideas in the 1950's and 1960's and applied in its Apple MPs players such as iPod as well as in Apple monitors. While it would have been a bad thing for the company to steal the idea from a man the then CEO, Steve Jobs admitted that he admired, Apple Inc. benefited immensely from its actions.

The company did not necessarily plagiarize the idea, but instead, it applied the thinking behind it too and repurposes it in a style that is different from the initial idea. Another example where the purposes of stealing could be considered is when making a judgment is when a man steals food for his children who are would otherwise die if they do not eat.

This study is aimed at determining whether it is important to consider the reasons for stealing when giving a penalty. In every country, some laws are meant to guard the properties of the citizens. Anyone who steals gets a punishment of either a jail term or a fine that is deemed to be equivalent. Some considerations are taken into account before reaching the final judgment. Is the reason for stealing one of them?

Case Overview

The case involves a man who is trying to secure a drug for his ailing wife to save her from dying. The wife has cancer, and only one drug that has recently been discovered will save her. A druggist in the town of RAK, United Arab Emirates has found a form of radium drug that the doctors have anticipated is likely to save the woman. However, the druggist is charging a staggering ten times amount of the cost he incurred in making the drug, which is an equivalent of $ 10,000 (cost of the drug was $ 1,000).

The woman's husband cannot afford the amount being charged. Even after borrowing from friends, he can only manage to raise half of the amount. The man ran out of options, and he could watch his wife die since he could not raise the money despite how hard he tried. In his determination to save his wife, he decides to break into the clinic's store and steal the drug. The man is taken to court and is faced with the case of theft which according to the UAE laws carries a penalty of 6 months to 3 years in prison of a fine of $10,000.

UAE Laws on Theft

The law in the United Arab Emirates is clear regarding the punishment for the crime of theft. It is defined as the act of taking possession of someone else assets or properties without consent and with the objective of retaining them. The government of UAE considers theft as one of the most dangerous crimes and the punishment usually ranges from a jail sentence to a fine. Jail sentence is six months to 3 years. However, based on the specific circumstances and situations, the sentence could either be higher or lower (Souryal, 110). For instance, theft by an employee at their place of work could rise to 7 years. It could even be higher if the person is accused of using a lethal weapon to commit the theft. Some of the penalties that are attached to various circumstances underlying the cases of theft are; AED 10,000 fine or a one year jail time for using someone's vehicle without their permission, between 5 to 7 years jail term for a case where an employee steals from their employer or their place of work.

If a citizen is accused of consuming food in a restaurant and failing to pay, it will be upon the judge to weigh the circumstances and make a decision on the jail term or the fine to hand. The judge, in this case, will be responsible for determining whether the reason for failing to pay was valid or not and assess the circumstances (Dowler, 20). A valid reason, in this case, could be the fact that the food served is not the one that was ordered. It is important to note that there are exceptions to the rule of theft. For instance, if the theft is between members of the nuclear family and no other third party is involved, the judge might penalize the accused based on the request for the complaint.

Notably, the use of a weapon is taken as an aggravating factor even in the situations of attempted theft (Souryal, 113). Typically, it is assumed that the reason as to why the suspect had the weapon was to harm the victim. This assumption stands even in cases where the crime did not take place. It is not easy to indeed determine whether the defendant was going to use the weapon or not. For this reason, when deciding whether the crime is aggravated or not it should be concluded that the weapon was carried for use in executing the theft. It is at the discretion of the judge to determine whether the weapon was meant to use in the crime or not based on the evidence that is presented to him or her. Also, a theft that is committed at night is usually classified as aggravated if it was committed at night.

There are some reasons as to why this kind of theft is considered as aggravated. Mostly, it is because at night people are not awake and the suspect has a better chance to do more than steal. But again, it is upon the judge to make a decision on what "night time" is and hence determine whether the theft was aggravated. "Nighttime" might vary considerably depending on how different people interpret it or based on the actual time of the day when the crime was committed. Therefore, it is upon the judge to make a decision regarding what time is "night time."

Cases that are likely to aggravate the crime of theft are outlined in Article 389 of the UAE constitution (Dowler, 20). Some of such cases are stealing in a place of worship, committing the crime of theft in places such as schools, homes, and banks among other inhabited places. Working in close relation with other people in the course of committing a theft crime and forcing entry or other forcefully entering a place that is secured/ where the general public is prohibited from entering are also similar cases. Article 10 of the UAE constitution requires that the complaint in a case either in person or through his or her legal representative files the criminal act either verbally or through writing (Souryal, 113). Among the crimes mentioned in this section of the constitution include theft.

Consideration of Factors Leading to the Crime of Theft in Making a Judgment

As it has been mentioned earlier, people steal for different reasons. While some reasons are morally justifiable (such as stealing food to save children from dying of hunger), other cases are immoral and cannot be justified by whatever means. Also, the situation in question where the man wanted to get the drug so that he can save his wife from dying could be termed as stealing for a right course. Ethically, it is not moral to let a human being die of hunger or sickness when there is an alternative action that one can take to save them from the face of death.

Nonetheless, it is immoral to steal. Therefore, there are two cases of morality whereby people have to choose which action to take. While letting another human die of sickness or hunger when there is something that can save them is immoral, it is equally immoral to steal to save them. Theft is explicitly stated as a crime under the law of not only the United Arab Emirates but also in most other nations.

Theories Explaining the Issue of Theft

There have been various theories that have been developed to solve matters in criminal law. These theories can broadly be classified as either analytical or normative. The salient features relating to each of them should be identified and distinguished from the other types of laws to determine which of the categories a criminal issue belongs. While analytical theories explain the general concept of criminal law together with any other related thoughts, normative theories, on the other hand, look deeper to understand what criminal law ought to be in addition to describing it and its concepts (Timmons, 67). It is important to note that the theories of criminal law are general law theories but are applied based on the specific cases and the particular circumstances that are surrounding the case in question.

Ethical theories that explain the issue of stealing are developed by ethical principles that take into account given moral codes. The principles are important in shaping the behavior of human beings, and for this reason, they are included in major ethical systems as well as religious systems. The basic rule under these principles is "do not steal." This case is an ethical and a moral issue that is inculcated in people from an early age, and they grow to understand that it is wrong to steal (Timmons, 79). Due to the changing nature of the current world, it has become more important to understand ethical problems and issues as this will offer guidance in determining effective means of addressing them.

One of the theories that can be used to explain the issue of theft is the consequential theory. According to this theory, an action is defined as either moral or immoral based on the consequences rather than the actions. It does not matter how one got to the point they are as long as the results are positive or are beneficial. The potential outcome of an action is what determines its moral value. For instance, a person might face a risk of falling into trouble with the government while trying to save a life of another person (Shafer-Landau, 63). This scenario might happen where one commits a constitutionally illegal act for a good cause. The consequential theory will classify their actions as moral. Another important theory that can be used to explaining the action, in this case, is the deontological theory. According to the deontological theory, the righteousness or wrongness of an action is determined based on the rules. People have duties and obligations that they are expected to fulfill.

Whether the outcome of a given action is good or not, people are expected to abide by specific rules that offer guidance on what is right or wrong. There is a moral obligation that defines the moral actions of any individual. The moral obligation may emanate from either internal or external sources. Some of the sources could be rules that apply to the universe. They could be social rules, personal rules religious laws, or even constitutional laws. In explaining the deontological theory, Immanuel Kant, famed for the Kantianism philosophy stated that people are expected to act from duty (Shafer-Landau, 65).

In this argument, Kant posited that for one to be regarded as acting in a morally right way, their action must be strictly from duty. He continued to argue that the highest good is expected to be good in itself and at the same time good without qualification. An action that is inherently good is what qualifies as good in itself. On the other hand, an action that does not worsen an ethical situation is what Kant referred to as good without qualification. He also added that the outcome of an action does not make the action right or wrong. Instead, it is the motive behind the action that determines its morality or lack of it. In this regard, if a person had the right intentions when executing a particular action, which against the rules of the cultural norms and values, the outcome of such an action will not make it...