Talk:Property crime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
- There are a couple of problems with these unsourced statements.
- Property crime only involves the taking of money or property, and does not involve force or threat of force against a victim. Although robbery involves taking property, it is classified as a violent crime, as force or threat of force on an individual that is present is involved in contrast to burglary which is typically of an unoccupied dwelling or other unoccupied building.
There is a couple of problems with these unsourced statements. First, the comment about robbery assumes a violent crime and a property crime are mutually exclusive, which is not the case logically, nor legally. My general understanding of robbery for U.S. jurisdictions is that robbery is a Crime (or Offense) Against Property. See Sections 708-840 through 708-842 of the Hawaii Revised Statues, constituting the degrees and definitions of robbery for that State. Chapter 708, which those sections fall under, is titled Crimes Against Property. Also, article 222 of the Model Penal Code falls under the category of "Offenses Against Property". I recognize some jurisdictions may include Robbery under Crimes Against Persons, see sections 211-215 of the California Penal Code under Title 8m Crimes against the Person. No citations for this right now, but think of it this way. The purpose of robbery is to obtain, that is, steal, property. The use of force is the means to realize that purpose. While the means aggravates the offense to something more serious than theft, it does not remove it from the rubric of an offense against property or a property crime.
Thus, I propose changing the sentence to acknowledge that, while Robbery is a property crime (at least in some jurisdictions), it is also a violent crime as well.
Second, the second sentence in the quoted material is off for a few reasons. 1) I'm pretty sure no state in the USA requires a building to be uninhabited for a burglary charged. If inhabitation is a factor at all, it's usually an aggravating factor make the penalty higher. 2) the sentence implies that burglary does not involve threat or force at all. Burglary is, generally speaking, entering/remaining unlawfully within a structure (what qualifies may vary between jurisdictions) with the intent to commit a crime therein. Now what sorts of crimes may be limited. in the burglary sections in Chapter 708 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a burg follows the preceding definition, but limits it to crimes against person or property. So, in Hawaii, entering a house without permission with the intent to commit assault (Hawaii's form of Battery (crime)), terroristic threatening (similar to Assault as it exists in England), Sexual Assault, etc. Section 459 of the California Penal Code limits burglary to entering with intent to commit larceny or a felony. Now, there are certainly crimes in any jurisdictions that would be a higher level offense than burglary, and the State would then prosecute the underlying crime, instead of burglary, but the fact is that burglary is not limited to property crimes.
For this I propose a statement to the effect that while burglary is a property crime because it involves trespass, depending on the jurisdiction it can involve the intent to commit other kinds of crime as well.
- Trespass is not listed anywhere in the article yet.
These are things I can point out right now. Iām a little surprised this article has a B rating.InMyHumbleOpinion (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
