Relationship Between Theft and Morality

One of the main crimes is exactly theft. It is a situation in which issues cannot solve and ongoing since the old years.

Among people are not known morality of thieves and many of people are defined them immorality. Some of the societies have an opinion like that: Some people had class influence and theft almost was realised by classes but this opinion has changed, inequality of class has been removed and they have put rules. Despite this, the balances of the class did not change.

Crimes related to morality in many years. People accepted that all crimes have a moral direction. This is wrong knowledge and they deny other reason for crimes.

There are many reasons and even if moral education is developed, obstacles of theft cannot eliminate.

–

Introduction

The crime of theft investigated in this article. Definition of theft has done by elements of theft. Elements of theft will help to understand why theft has done.

Old ages define us how to become theft with old states. This is important because old states different from each other and states gave shape to the theft. Causes of theft have many titles however morality and illness issues may change the theft free will and this issue will be examined either.

–

Elements of Theft

The general meaning of theft is taking chattel from someone to benefit. It can be shown up five conditions for theft by using this definition and decision of the Criminal General Assembly:

Goods must be moveable

Lack of the possessor’s consent

Taken the goods

Goods belong to someone

Target of using

If one of this condition does not happen, we cannot mention theft. Wealth must be defined to understand the meaning of theft. Wealth is based on economic and moral value. Theft does not happen if goods have not the possessor. On the other hand, goods have to have economic and moral value. In conclusion, theft is to be processed.

–

The History of Theft

The reaction is not known theft in old ages. Individualistic punishment thought to be. Peoples provide justice own their own, and this was happening too hard. Punishment has changed when the states arise.

After resident life theft thought to arise. Private propriety took shape after agriculture too but agriculture has some problems. Natural disasters could occur and wild animals could attack. So, sometimes they had to fight because of this they died. They found a new and easy way to not die: Theft. Therefore, they put some kinds of punishment. Of course, according to development of states punishments changed.

According to the stage of crime, there was a punishment from money punishment to death punishment at Assyrian Law.

The thief used to carry goods which stolen, on his/her neck and thief used to be killed at the Iran Law.

Old Hellenic Law accepted that when the thief was caught red-handed, is accepted guilty. This depends on whether or not the night is received. If someone steals goods at daytime and the goods’ price more than fifty drachma punishment of this was death.

Sumer Law had heavy punishment. For example, goods which stolen from the king or holy place has death punishment or thief used to pay thirty-five times the price of goods. If someone whose goods stolen sees the goods and proves, s/he could take her/his goods.

Roman Law was different from others. They used to look at whether someone is free and they used to give different decisions.

Before Islam in Arabic, there had not a central state. Someone who is wealth makes theft, this was called loot, and if something is stolen from them it was theft. Though the condition was like this there was punishment about this. For example, cutting hand, prison, biting.

After Islam, crimes are separated two. Committing an offence to God and a person. Theft is in a group of committed an offence to God and these have heavy punishments. These punishments about the body.

Middle ages Church Law defined the theft is sin. Secret theft is worse than public theft. Even so, poverty, hunger is accepted as mitigating factors.

Before the Islam in Turks, punishment authority was on the state and crimes separated two. Heavy crimes and soft crimes and punishment of heavy crimes was death. For example horse theft.

Islamic Law and custom law were assimilated at the Ottoman Empire. At the arrangement period, some rules have put and changed.

After the foundation of the Republic of Turkey new laws has accepted.

–

Reasons for Theft

A) Economic Reasons

1) Unemployment: Peoples who lose their job, might do theft again to return to their previous life.

2) Income distribution: According to studies inequality of income distribution more influence than unemployment. If someone has not equal opportunity this will orient to crime.

–

B) Social Reasons

1) Education: Studies show us the income is increasing by education. Peoples who have not efficient education and work in a job which they have not talent, they orient to commit an offence.

2) Urbanization and migration: When people who go to cities where cannot develop quickly, cannot find a job, they may commit an offence. This problem arises because people who migrate from rural to urban, have not talent about jobs in cities and they breaking the law.

–

C) Theft Illness

There might be a lot of reason for theft both there is one more thing is that kleptomania (illness of theft). Reasons for theft have seen but these reasons have sentience. So, when people broke the law, they were aware. “Kleptomania is that stealing something from anywhere without economic and giving harm anxiety”.

Before the theft, they feel nervous their self, after the theft, they take pleasure or feel rest. “Stealing madness” is called to kleptomania in Greek.

Crime and moral cannot be mentioned because of kleptomania. The illness affects brains and a person does not know what s/he does. Because of this, we must say that according to the law for his sick there is no punishment.

Turk Criminal Code has put rule about that at article 32.

–

Morality

Morality, a subject which is paid attention, known and respected for many centuries. It is an abstract norm that organizes social life.

The general meaning of morality is that all good and bad behaviours and people want others to obey the good behaviours. So, it may be understood behaviour related to good. It leads behaviours of human and these rules were assimilated in long ages.

Awareness of responsibility is important in morality. Beginning of responsibility in society is the interaction between payee and debtor. A person who obeys responsibility s/he is moral and morality defines that good. If someone does not accept the responsibility this is bad for morality. In conclusion, irresponsibility hurt society.

–

Theft and Morality

There was theft since private property but not related to morality. Theft becomes a branch of bad morality. Therefore theft a behaviour that against morality but there are some exceptions.

Because of the social reasons, some societies do not agree about stealing equally with bad morality but the general opinion that stealing equally with bad morality. So, theft was accepted as a crime and put rules by states. Thieves have seemed bad and they were excluded by societies.

Condition is different at thieves who steal because of economic reasons. Some of them think that they will not find another way to not steal but other thieves steal to become rich faster. The thief who steals the goods which have low economic values because of not having enough money is not thought immorality. The thief has not targeted of harm in this case. Because of this reason these thefts have not got punishment.

If someone’s valuable goods are stolen there is hurt this person in this situation and thief has not aimed to resolve needs. The thief wants to become rich faster and easier. Hence, harm has been given and thief shows us the bad moral. The thief does not pay attention to social facts and punishment must be given.

–

Conclusion

Crime is a bad thing that morality accepted and theft is the same. On the other hand, a moral or immoral human may steal something and for this, there are lots of reason. Sometimes these reasons destroy morality. Each moral human does not behave according to good morality. Because of this knowledge, each thief is not immortal.

–

Bibliography

• Akalın, Adnan. İslam Ceza Hukukunda Hırsızlık Suçu ve Çalınan Mal ile İlgili İhtilaflar. 2006.
• Aydın, Mehmet Zeki. Ailede Ahlak Eğitimi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi p:125-156, 2003.
• Deveci, Asuman. İlköğretim Birinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Yalan ve Hırsızlık Konularındaki Yargılarının Öğretim ile Geliştirilmesine Dönük Bir Tasarım. 2005.
• Kandemir,Ferhan – Büken, Bora – Büken,Erhan – Erkol, Zerrin. Kleptomaniye Yol Açan Faktörler ve Ceza Sorumluluğunun Değerlendirilmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. 2014.
• Nacak, Mehmet Hırsızlık Suçu. 2013.
• Polat, Cevdet – Eren, Hakan – Erbakıcı, Ferdi. Hırsızlık Suçunu Etkileyen Faktörlerin Değerlendirilmesi ve Geleceğe Yönelik Yaklaşımlar. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013.
• Şeyhanioğlu, M.Emrah. Hırsızlık Suçu. 2010.

[zombify_post]