After reading the above and based on the definition of larceny in the text, is if fair to convict a person for larceny if he did not leave the premises without paying for the property in his possession? Does intent to deprive have anything to do with the outcome of a case of larceny? What do you think? Also, should the penalty for larceny vary, depending on where the individual is caught or the dollar value of the good taken? Explain
According to NYS penal law (155.05), “A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof”. So I believe it is fair to convict a person for larceny even if he or she did not actually leave the premises without paying for the property in his or her possession. In the case of Olivio, the story clearly stated that he stopped to look around several times, which confirms that his motive was indeed to steal the merchandise- the story also stated that he ran right past the cash registers in order to make an exit with the merchandise which further confirms that he intended to take the merchandise without paying. Which shows intent to deprive.. I believe the penalty for larceny should vary depending on the dollar value of the merchandise that was taken- I however do not think that the penalty should vary according to where the individual is caught. Where the individual is caught is irrelevant- what matters is retrieving the merchandise and or property that was stolen and punishing the person who stole it.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document