Larceny and the Application of the Rule of Law - Case Study Example

Name Tutor Title: Larceny: Case Study Institution Date Larceny and the Application of the Rule of Law The scenario is larceny and the charges posed against an individual will depend on the seriousness of the crime. It will depend on the value of items taken by the offender. On the basis of nonconsequatialist theory of morality the action itself is determined by moral acceptance and not necessarily the outcome of the action which could be mostly bare negative consequences. In the first situation of the case study, a woman asks her child whether she would like some grapes. It was good her kid likes fruits but surprisingly, the woman took a bunch of grapes from the display bin, and handed. Then she proceeds further, to munch on it and gives some to the kid and there is no way all this stuff is to be weighed for in at check out. The action from either a consequentialist or a non-consequentialist view, is morally unacceptable. If the action is to be judged from a consequentialist basis, the first action of handing grapes to the child from the display is wrong since the consequence would be that the supermarket will encounter losses given that the offender will not pay for the same at the checkout. The police in this situation would rather use the rule of law rather than discretion. The offender really has the capability to judge and tell that she was doing something wrong. Since she will pay for the rest of the goods this enough evidence that she is aware, that the grapes would belong to her only after she has paid for them. Similarly, the second action in this situation, handing peach to the kid and munching some herself, from both consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories the action is morally wrong. In the consequentialist perspective the individual will cost the supermarket a huge loss due to failure to pay for the peach she consumes while still doing her shopping (Noel,2007). The consequences are also negative to her since a morally upright society would not approve of such a person. This would definitely give her a bad reputation. Consequently the charges of such a crime could see her receive a penalty of imprisonment according the judgment of a court to serve justice for both her and the supermarket. In the context of the non-consequentialist the action, despite its consequences, the action is wrong judged from the perspective of rightness due to omission of duty by the customer to pay for all she took from the supermarket. This could be related to shoplifting where someone may literally take goods without paying for them. The verdict of this situation would involve the police apprehending the customer presenting evidence in a court of law in which she would be judged according to the larceny law either for a larceny crime or a grand larceny crime depending on the value of goods (Wuff & Yongsheng, 2003). In regard to larceny law, the conduct of a customer in a supermarket maybe termed as a crime once it violates the due process of acquiring goods as expected. In a different scenario, that is, “another day, in the same supermarket, an elderly woman pulls bananas from a bunch, leaving behind the stalks attached to the rest of the fruit, presumably so she will not have to pay for the bits she can't use. I think if she could, she would leave the skins there too. In another row the guy removes the green stalks from the hydroponic tomatoes so they look like the ordinary, cheaper ones and he will pay for them as such, and wanders off.” In each particular action above, the criteria of judgment is the same. In a non-consequentialist context the actions are wrong judged on rightness or wrongness as the first one is an omission of duty whereas the second one is an evasion of paying due full amount money to the supermarket in exchange of tomatoes. The consequentialist view on this particular scenario would also lead to a conclusion of the actions as being immoral as to what the social ethics of conduct require of a morally upright individual. The act of removing the green stalks from the hydroponic tomatoes, so that they look like the ordinary cheaper ones, is a cheat to the supermarket since he would pay for them as the latter. This would deprive the supermarket of its rightful profits and definitely lead to losses. The police would hereby take an action of applying the rule of law rather than use discretion since it is obvious the offender is well informed that the hydroponic tomatoes cost more than the ordinary no doubt he removed the green stalks so that they would look like the ordinary ones so that he could pay for them as such. Justice would be served for parties, the offender and the supermarket with respect to seriousness of the crime depending on the value of goods. Therefore, the offender could be found either, guilty of larceny or grand larceny and serve a simple penalty or a sever penalty respectively (Wuff & Yongsheng, 2003). Generally an average person may take theft of property as just a wrong doing. However, the law does not view it in that perspective. There are various types of stealing offenses of which grand larceny is one of them. The law takes into consideration the value of the items taken and if found to exceed a certain vale then it is termed grand larceny. The items taken individually are not considered each separately but are summed up to account for charges of a grand larceny. This implies that although the items may be of a low value, together combined they make a grand larceny (Rahul, 2001). In this particular case duties are taken into consideration when it comes to making a decision on which duty to be acted upon. For this scenario the police present the vicinity of the incident and will apply the duty of justice. However, from aretaic theory perspective, neither consequences nor duties would count. The character of an individual is what the act would be attributed to since people act in accordance with their characteristics. The law would apply as to such a grand larceny if the value of the items added up would meet the condition required (Tim, 2005). Quite odd, another incident in the same supermarket, “I join the queue at the checkout. It's long and boring, and most of the women waiting take magazines from the racks and read them until it's their turn to be served. The magazines, in many cases looking well-thumbed, are stuffed back with the others on the stand, and nobody says anything. It appears this is acceptable, and may indeed be considered by the female shoppers as their right, perhaps in compensation for having to wait a few minutes.” Taking magazines, usually well thumbed as women are waiting for their turn to be served at the supermarket queue and stuffing them back is equally the same as shoplifting where an individual would take an item without paying for it. The argument that this would be a form of compensation for having to wait for long to be served is morally wrong and unacceptable though it seems to be acceptable to them (Sigmund, 2002). In another incidence a customer just ignores the hygienic supplied metal scoop and takes a handful of nuts from the display case as she proceeds with her shopping, is in no doubt violating the morally acceptable conduct. On the basis of non-consequalist the action is judged from it rightness or wrongness depending on properties intrinsic. The hygienic scoop provided in the supermarket is no doubt to cater for cleaning purpose, thus the customer who ignores and it and goes for a packed soap on the display has committed a crime which can be regarded equally as shoplifting and liable to charges of larceny for the property to the supermarket. Similarly, from a consequalist view, the action is morally wrong and absolutely unacceptable. Based on the consequences of the action, the supermarket will incur losses that its effect cuts across to several stakeholders and third party. In an ethical community, the damage is to be measured and evaluated for compensation which will thereafter be used a determine factor of what penalty the apprehended defendant will sentenced to serve. The customer does not have the right to use the soap on the display bin until he or she has paid for it to claim ownership. The focus of evaluating such an action from non-consequentialist reasoning does not put appeal to its consequence. The consequences of the action are negative for the apprehended individual because they have to serve a sentence under the justice administered regarding the larceny law in a particular jurisdiction for a certain situation. Thus from a consequentialist standpoint, the act is morally wrong due to omission of good conduct (Coady, 2008). Usually an individual can not be convicted of grand larceny if he or she did not have the intention of keeping the item that he or she had stolen.This is an indication that even if a person took somebody’s item without permission, it constitutes a crime. The person will acquitted if he can prove his or her intention to return it at a future date. An example is a person who does lawn service and takes equipment for personal jobs. The individual might prove his intention to use and return the equipment a certain reasonable date. The rule outlines that you are no particular basis for morality and thus rules that regulate morality can not be applied to the consequences once one follows the rules (Bonnie, 2007). On the basis of nonconsequatialist theory of morality the action itself is determined by moral acceptance and not necessarily the outcome of the action which could be mostly negative consequences. According to Carl & Zofia (2011), an individual can not be convicted of grand larceny if he or she did not have the intention of keeping the item that he or she had stolen. This is an indication that even if a person took somebody’s item without permission, it constitutes a crime. An act is only morally if the action itself is done out of regard as a duty. The individual involved has the will to do it for a benefit that will suit the morals accepted and upheld in a particular situation. On the basis of non-consequentialist theory of morality the action itself is determined by moral acceptance and not necessarily the outcome of the action which could be mostly negative consequences. Action of taking a magazine whereas queuing and waiting to be served, the defendant should most appropriately be confronted; evidence recorded and witness called upon. This is because it is wrong and morally unacceptable since after thoroughly reading the magazine the defendant would not buy a copy to take home as they already have gone through all that is in it (Paul, Prasanta, & Clemens, 2009). The crime an individual charged with is based on the force applied in theft. A violent theft may not be considered grand larceny in some places, but the action of kicking an individual with use of a weapon and taking away his or her possession may is considered robbery instead. The penalty given for robbery is rather severe than a penalty of grand larceny charge. The intention of a thief is also taken into consideration for a charge to be taken against him or her. Bibliography Paul. A, Prasanta, K. P & Clemens, P (2009) the handbook of rational and social choice New York: Oxford University Press Bonnie. S (2007) the oxford handbook of bioethics New York: Oxford University Press Coady, A. J (2008) morality and political violence New York: Cambridge University Press Noel, P (2007) understanding ethics London: Federation Press Carl. K & Zofia. S (2011) responsibility and distributive justice New York: oxford University Press Sigmund, L (2002) fair play in sport London: Routledge Tim, M (2005) the demands of consequentialism New York: oxford University Press Rahul, K (2001) consensualism in principle London: Routledge John, F, Joseph, M.B & Germain, G. G (1987) nuclear deterrence, morality and realism New York: Oxford University Press Wuff, G & Yongsheng, X (2003) individual choices in a non-consequentialist framework London: Univ, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswiss Read More

In the context of the non-consequentialist the action, despite its consequences, the action is wrong judged from the perspective of rightness due to omission of duty by the customer to pay for all she took from the supermarket. This could be related to shoplifting where someone may literally take goods without paying for them. The verdict of this situation would involve the police apprehending the customer presenting evidence in a court of law in which she would be judged according to the larceny law either for a larceny crime or a grand larceny crime depending on the value of goods (Wuff & Yongsheng, 2003).

In regard to larceny law, the conduct of a customer in a supermarket maybe termed as a crime once it violates the due process of acquiring goods as expected. In a different scenario, that is, “another day, in the same supermarket, an elderly woman pulls bananas from a bunch, leaving behind the stalks attached to the rest of the fruit, presumably so she will not have to pay for the bits she can't use. I think if she could, she would leave the skins there too. In another row the guy removes the green stalks from the hydroponic tomatoes so they look like the ordinary, cheaper ones and he will pay for them as such, and wanders off.

” In each particular action above, the criteria of judgment is the same. In a non-consequentialist context the actions are wrong judged on rightness or wrongness as the first one is an omission of duty whereas the second one is an evasion of paying due full amount money to the supermarket in exchange of tomatoes. The consequentialist view on this particular scenario would also lead to a conclusion of the actions as being immoral as to what the social ethics of conduct require of a morally upright individual.

The act of removing the green stalks from the hydroponic tomatoes, so that they look like the ordinary cheaper ones, is a cheat to the supermarket since he would pay for them as the latter. This would deprive the supermarket of its rightful profits and definitely lead to losses. The police would hereby take an action of applying the rule of law rather than use discretion since it is obvious the offender is well informed that the hydroponic tomatoes cost more than the ordinary no doubt he removed the green stalks so that they would look like the ordinary ones so that he could pay for them as such.

Justice would be served for parties, the offender and the supermarket with respect to seriousness of the crime depending on the value of goods. Therefore, the offender could be found either, guilty of larceny or grand larceny and serve a simple penalty or a sever penalty respectively (Wuff & Yongsheng, 2003). Generally an average person may take theft of property as just a wrong doing. However, the law does not view it in that perspective. There are various types of stealing offenses of which grand larceny is one of them.

The law takes into consideration the value of the items taken and if found to exceed a certain vale then it is termed grand larceny. The items taken individually are not considered each separately but are summed up to account for charges of a grand larceny. This implies that although the items may be of a low value, together combined they make a grand larceny (Rahul, 2001). In this particular case duties are taken into consideration when it comes to making a decision on which duty to be acted upon.

For this scenario the police present the vicinity of the incident and will apply the duty of justice. However, from aretaic theory perspective, neither consequences nor duties would count. The character of an individual is what the act would be attributed to since people act in accordance with their characteristics. The law would apply as to such a grand larceny if the value of the items added up would meet the condition required (Tim, 2005). Quite odd, another incident in the same supermarket, “I join the queue at the checkout.

It's long and boring, and most of the women waiting take magazines from the racks and read them until it's their turn to be served.

Read More