Talk:Larceny

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

value of goods[edit]

The article says that leaves that have fallen from trees, garbage, dirty diapers, the contents of a septic tank could not be stolen because any rational person would not pay anything for them. This is of course wrong, garbage of all kinds is being traded and used as raw material for biogas production. 78.108.52.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

citations[edit]

The 13th citation web link (N.Y. Penal L. § 155.00 (3), found at NY State assembly website. Retrieved october 2, 2008.) doesn't work and has no information. Please update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.121.161.62 (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


English law[edit]

Is Larceny still a crime in the English law? I thought it was replaced by Theft.

It has been replaced. I was quite confused when I looked for it in the menu on the right hand side. Is it possible to add theft to the 'criminal law' menu? I don't know how to, sorry :( DARLA 07/06/07

Sarbjit.

Example[edit]

Does this make any sense? "The difference between rotating a doughnut (larceny) and rotating a pie (not larceny)." They are both round so neither center would change. The least movement of the property from its original position is sufficient to satisfy the asportation element of common law larceny. However, as noted the entirety of the property must move from its original position. In rotating a doughnut all the doughnut moves - with a pie the center does not move. Thus rotation of a doughnut would constitute a taking while rotation of a pie would not. Another example would be a tire lying on its side. If a thief lifted the tire intending to roll it away, the lifting movement would not be sufficient for common law larceny since a point of contact between the tire and the ground has not changed.Gambino23 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software[edit]

Hello? Don't we normally have a disambiguation page for this sort of thing (re bottom of page)? Sargdit: your issue seems to have been addressed. - J Alexander D Atkins 10:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great observation! Larceny seems to be a form of theft. For instance? You take your car to the shop to get fix, you up at anytime without notifing the mechanic and take the car he'll report it as theft. Just because it's your car. They have the right to ownership at the point in time of it being in the shop. They are responsible for the cars they fix at all times being in their profession.

In English law, larceny was replaced by theft in 1968. Many of the federal and U.S. state laws retain the term larceny. And, to clarify your example, the garage only has a lien for the unpaid bill and not ownership (and, yes, that means that a person can steal his or her own property). David91 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Help!!! Can someone explain what larceny by check is?????

Thanks Michelle May 11, 2006

New question: Someone who works as a teller at a bank begins selling account information on the internet. Is this larceny, employee fruad or counterfeiting?

The above question would be considered identity theft and identity fraud, and possibly bank fraud as well.

Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data (account info, name on the account) in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference[edit]

Difference between larceny and theft is that the theft is done with dishonesty whereas larceny not.

element of dishonesty haa to be presetn at the time of performing act.

eg. THEFT : stealing with intention to deprive the owner. .

LARCENY: accidenally removing / taking away however not returning the same on having knonwledge of it as wrongly removed.

subhash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.106.186 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The difference between larceny and theft is not made clear in this article. Several dictionary sources did not make the difference clear. Could this difference be made clear, perhaps in the introduction? MykellM (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between larceny and theft; Theft includes all forms of criminal misappropriation of personal property - larceny, false pretenses, embezzlement and so forth. Larceny is a type of theft.

Merger with Theft[edit]

Per the discussion and removal of the tag there [1], I am removing the tag here and at WP:PM. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona[edit]

Is there any particular need for there to be a distinct Arizona section? meccaneer (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so, so I have removed that section.--Gloriamarie (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation to Portuguese[edit]

When I click in "Português" on the LARCENY page, the Portuguese page shows "Latrocínio" which is a type of theft where you kill to rob, instead of showing "Estelionato".

200.152.99.94 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Shanna[reply]

Bad Lead?[edit]

Why is the definition of Larceny not the sentence in the lead? The lead feels very disjointed and informs you "was an offence under the common law of England" Who cares? I just think that it might be worth rearranging, if not rewriting the lead --96.235.229.161 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Intent of Larceny[edit]

I just stumbled over this article, and I am not a lawyer, but have serious issues with the part of the definition of larceny concerning the intent, even if it is properly reflected in this article according to the official definitions by the law.

Here is my problem: The intent of larceny is being described essentially as to deprive the owner of their stuff. But if someone steals something, then deprivation of the owner is rarely the intent, rather the intent is to get the stuff for oneself so that one can benefit from it. Therefore, merely as a consequence of the action of stealing motivated by the intent of benefitting, the original owner is deprived of said stuff and its benefits. So the deprivation of the owner is not part of the intention of stealing, but rather a consequence of the way reality works in response to the act of stealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.144.206 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two ways to answer this criticism neither of which is completely satisfactory. First one could say that the question confuses intent and motive. Intent means that the person acted volitonally with the immediate purpose of acquiring possession of the property. Motive answers the "why" - why did he steal the property. Second, one can side step the problem by expanding the intent element to include both the intentional deprivation of property and acts done with knowledge that such deprivation is substantially certain to occur.--Jgard5000 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)JGARD5000[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

Isn't there a contradiction in the 'Take' element of the US System?

".. control over the property, although momentary, was sufficient to constitute a taking."

this goes against the definition of the definition of 'Deprive'

"..To "deprive" another of property means (a) to withhold it or cause it to be withheld from him permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him, or (b" DrBob127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I suspect that "deprive" really only refers to the intent element, not the actual action, but I am not a US lawyer - maybe one can explain explain. The article is generally quite muddled, so it may well be the case. Westmorlandia (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "deprive permanently", and refers to the action as well as intent. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking is one of the acts that constitutes the offense. To satisfy this element the defendant must take possession of the property it only for a moment. The intent element describes the state of mind with which the defendant must act. He must take possession with the intent to deprive the owner of possession permanently. Permanently means indefinitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgard5000 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland[edit]

The only country of the UK not mentioned is Scotland. Does anybody know what the status of larceny is there? Oliphaunt (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's illegal :)

Candidates for deletion[edit]

The sections under Other factors on taking asportation and intent are largely redundant and should be deleted to clean up article or incorporated into new sections.Jgard5000 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)jgard5000[reply]

Inconsistency[edit]

Pardon me for being so picky (I know this has almost nothing gotta do with the subject matter, though it's about the content), but the spellings offense and offence are on the same page in the same paragraph.

Shouldn't something be done to make it more consistent ? 60.49.67.253 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph[edit]

Currently the opening paragraph of this page is the following: Larceny is Larceny. Though true, this strikes me as utterly uninformative. I don't believe I possess the necessary knowledge and expertise; nevertheless, this issue needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.227.169 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larceny&oldid=1219725360"