So, to be clear: Suppose that I break a car window to rescue an overheating child. If the parents were to sue me for that act, I could use the defense of necessity, and possibly invoke Good Samaritan laws… But if the State were so improbably heartless as to charge me with the crime of vandalism, I would not have any defense?
At least in Illinois law, necessity is an affirmative defense to criminal charges (in the following, “720 ILCS 5/” is the Criminal Code in the Illinois Compiled Statutes):
While this is Illinois law, the Criminal Code of 1961 was modeled on the Model Penal Code, and this Criminal Code section has never been amended since 1961.
Thank you all for the informed and insightful responses. As often before, one of the duties of this board, in fighting ignorance, is to help others unlearn things that they’d picked up over the years. Somehow, I’d picked up the idea that stealing to feed a family was “legal” or enshrined as forgivable – a judge might impose a trivial fine, for instance – with precedent and all. I see now: not so! Thank you!
Isn’t the Necessity defense absolute in all US jurisdictions?
As it was explained to me (Business Law 101), the rule is “an act which is require to prevent a larger loss”.
Breaking into a car or house to free a child in mortal danger is a no-brainer, how about shooting the guy waving a gun wildly in a public place? I’m guessing you’d better be a cop (or in a very Red state) - you definitely killed a person. Would he have even fired the thing, let alone at someone.
Two cops killed a (large for age, mentally defective) kid who was waving a reproduction 1911 45 ACP in an area noted for violence. I believe that was the case that got “toy” weapons their orange muzzles. Portrero Hill (noted for producing OJ Simpson), SF CA 1980s
And stealing a loaf of bread would only fall under necessity if it was the only thing available to use as a bandage to (try to) stop arterial bleeding, or other such condition.
If I have to worry about going to jail if I break into a burning house to get to a screaming child, something is very wrong.
However, if I am in a “stand your (or somebody’s, anybody’s) ground” state, such as Texas (where a man was acquitted for shooting 2 burglars of his neighbor’s house in the back as they were running away from him), I just might keep walking - what if the fire is not obvious to the guy with a gun?
I can’t imagine this is hypothetical situation, historically speaking.
For most of the history of western law (specifically Rome, England, and pre-twentieth century America, where our modern law principles come from) there was real of chance of any given thief having an actual starving family. So it seems unlikely that the law would be set up to let thieves get off if they could prove a starving family.
A man came into my father’s store and took a container of milk. He told my father, “Do what you have to do, but I’m getting this for our baby.”
That act was illegal.
My father did nothing except raise my esteem for his compassion.
It may be moral, and also illegal.
My church (RCC) has a lot to say about the universal destination of goods, and the preferential option for the poor, and social justice in general, and it would probably say that “stealing” to feed a child, when there is no other alternative, is not a sin.
The district attorney of Kings County would probably call it a misdemeanor (assuming we’re just talking about a loaf of bread here).
Wasn’t it Steven Jay Gould who came up with the idea of “non-overlapping magisteria”? Well, here we’ve got overlapping magisteria.
Perhaps a good analogy would be, “when is it OK to commit cannibalism?”
There have been several examples in recent history (or not so recent, with the Donner story). Modern civilization reaches all around the world. If you are somehow cut off from it by shipwreck, blizzards, airplane crash, etc. - then sooner or later you will reconnect and what you do to stay alive then, chowing down on thy neighbour, is acceptable even though in any other circumstance it would be abhorrent.
Note that by contrast, the northern Cree Indians evolved a different ethic; without the global civilization structure to expect eventual rescue from, they considered cannibalism an absolute taboo. It’s a slippery slope - if you eat grandma because there’s been no moose found for 3 months, where do you stop? “It’s too cold to go out this week, I’ll boil up one of the babies instead”?
In the case of the Martin Hartwell’s airplane crash in northern Canada, he survived while the aboriginal nurse starved to death rather than also eat the dead passengers.
Also note that despite the tolerance of modern society, in no circumstances do we condone killing one another for food no matter how desperate the situation. With unnecessary cannibalism, like Jeffrey Dahmer, the crime is considered one of the most disgusting.
There is no specific exemption for “cannibalism is OK in these circumstances” but I don’t recall any news stories that included prosecuting the survivors.
The trouble with helping yourself to milk for the child is - if you don’t have enough money to feed your child, how do you function? Was this just a bad week of unexpected real expenses, or was it that you absolutely had to have that last pack of cigarettes or that six-pack? It’s the same slippery slope as the aboriginals and cannibalism. If these are your normal circumstances and likely won’t get much better, what is so special that this will be a one-time occurrence? Will it become a habit? Modern society is structured to supposedly ensure that there is the support so people CAN feed their kids, as borne out by the fact that we don’t have an epidemic of bread theft.
The doctrine of necessity, which I sort of touched on, yes. It’s not a bar to prosecution, though; just a defense. Whether or not it applies would be a jury question.
See R. v. Dudley and Stephens from my link above: two sailors and a boy were in a lifeboat after their ship foundered. The boy became weak from dehydration and/or hunger and was clearly going to die. The sailors decided to kill and eat him because there didn’t seem to be any prospect of rescue in the short term. They were convicted of murder.
My point exactly - it’s considered an excusable “necessity” to resort to cannibalism while awaiting rescue, even if not specifically excluded by law, but is NEVER considered OK to hurry along the process of obtaining that food.
You don’t under any circumstances damage a person’s car. If there’s an overheating child inside you call 911, get the hell out of the area and hope you’re not charged with mischief for a frivolous 911 call.
You don’t under any circumstances leave an overheating child in a sealed car for as long as it takes for emergency responders to arrive.
One distinction between bread and the car situation is that the parent has done something illegal already, whereas the store has done nothing to you.
Disagree, unless you plan to flee the area after you rescue the child and hope you don’t get caught.
“Get caught”? What do you mean? Get caught at what?
If you were lost in the woods and freezing and starving and you came across a cabin, and you broke in and ate the canned food you found there, necessity would be a defense against trespassing and stealing. You would have died if you hadn’t broken in, you would have died without the food.
But if you’re not lost in the woods, the necessity defense doesn’t apply. You’re starving, so you walk into a supermarket and steal a loaf of bread? Why didn’t you tell people you were starving and ask them to give you loaf of bread? Why didn’t you go to the salvation army? Why didn’t you apply for food stamps? Why didn’t you go to the food bank and ask for food?
There are enough ways for hungry people to get free food that the necessity defense wouldn’t hold up in court. You’d be convicted of misdemeanor theft, and get a slap on the wrist punishment. But hey, while you’re in jail awaiting trial, free food!
My point that while that is currently the case (there is something seriously dysfunctional in your life if your family is actually starving, and that unlikely to solved by a load of bread), for most of the history western law that was not the case. There were plenty of starving families, and someone ending up court for theft had a decent chance of having one of them. There is no way theft laws would be worded in such a way as those people got off. Furthermore something as fundamental to our legal as system as what constitutes theft has not really changed all that much since those days.
UMMM…get caught damaging someone’s car??:smack:
You can legally break a window to save the life of a human being. This is not a murky legal concept. You think if you break a window to save a baby locked in a car the cops are going to arrest you?
If a person were to deliberately damage someone’s vehicle because that person thought the baby inside was in imminent danger, and then with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight the baby was not, I’d sure hate to be the guy that broke the guy’s car window, or worse yet, took the baby out. Not a chance, I’m calling 911 and hope those folks don’t think it wasn’t “proper” to call 911 as it turned out there was no emergency.