Question from a reader:
Please tell me about the crime of theft under criminal law. Specifically, there are two cases to consider: 1. If a person rides a bicycle that was left in front of A’s house without permission, intending to return it to its original place after 10 minutes. 2. If a person rides a bicycle found in front of
B’s house without permission, intending to return it after 5 hours, but is caught by the police after 4 hours. Based on the theory of the necessity of the intent to exclude the rights holder, I believe that case 1 would not be charged as a crime, while case 2 would constitute theft. Please explain the reasons for this. What I particularly want to know is: – Why is only case 2 considered theft, even though both cases have the intention to return (is it because the time until return is longer?). – In case 2, how does being caught before returning affect the situation? If they had not been caught, would they have been charged with a crime? I would appreciate a detailed explanation on this point.
Understanding Theft in Criminal Law
The crime of theft is a legal framework applied to the act of stealing someone else’s property. In Japanese criminal law, theft is defined in Article 235, which requires the unlawful possession of another person’s property. This article aims to deepen the understanding of theft through the examination of the two specific cases and to consider the interpretation based on the necessity of the intent to exclude the rights holder.
Case 1: Riding A’s Bicycle Without Permission
In the case where a person rides A’s bicycle left in front of A’s house without permission, intending to return it to its original place after 10 minutes, the question is whether they can be charged with theft. Based on the theory of the necessity of the intent to exclude the rights holder, it can be argued that there was no intent to “take the bicycle away,” and therefore it does not constitute theft. In this case, there was no intention to infringe on A’s rights, and the plan to return it in a short time does not meet the legal criteria for theft.
Case 2: Riding B’s Bicycle Without Permission
Next, in the case where a person rides a bicycle found in front of B’s house without permission, intending to return it after 5 hours but is caught by the police after 4 hours, it is clear that the rights of B are being infringed, making it highly likely to be classified as theft. It can be interpreted that there was an intent to exclude the rights holder by using someone else’s property without permission. In other words, there was an intention to use B’s bicycle, which constitutes an act that infringes on B’s rights.
Why Case 1 is Not Charged and Case 2 is Theft
An important point here is the presence of the intention to return and its feasibility. In case 1, there was a clear intention to return A’s bicycle in 10 minutes, and the act itself was brief, leading to the conclusion that there was no intent to infringe on rights. On the other hand, in case 2, the longer duration of unauthorized use of B’s bicycle, while ignoring the rights holder’s intent, leads to its classification as theft. Thus, the longer time until return and the disregard for the rights holder’s intent are significant differences that serve as criteria for determining whether theft has occurred.
How Being Caught Affects the Situation
In case 2, it is also crucial to consider how being caught by the police while riding B’s bicycle without permission affects the establishment of theft. If the person had returned the bicycle before being caught, and if B had the intention to allow that act, it is likely that they would not be charged with theft. However, being caught emphasizes the fact that B’s rights were infringed, increasing the likelihood of being classified as theft. Regarding the question of whether they would have been charged if they had not been caught, it can be considered that being caught creates legal responsibility, thus establishing theft due to being apprehended before returning the bicycle.
Application and Impact of the Theory of the Necessity of the Intent to Exclude the Rights Holder
The theory of the necessity of the intent to exclude the rights holder is very important as a requirement for the establishment of theft. According to this theory, when unlawfully possessing someone else’s property, there must be an intent to exclude the rights holder’s will. Considering how this theory is applied through cases 1 and 2 is essential for deepening legal understanding. In particular, if there is no intent to exclude the rights holder, even if someone temporarily uses another’s property, it is not considered theft. This aspect forms a very important part of legal interpretation.
Future Trends and Practical Advice
Deepening the understanding of theft is important for those interested in the law. As legal understanding progresses, especially among younger generations, legal education will become increasingly important. In an era where information about the law spreads through social media and the media, obtaining accurate information is essential. Therefore, I recommend participating in seminars and workshops related to the law or reading specialized books. By deepening your knowledge, you will be able to protect your own rights and the rights of others in the future.
Conclusion
Understanding theft has deepened through consideration of the theory of the necessity of the intent to exclude the rights holder, using specific cases. We were able to analyze the differences between cases 1 and 2, the presence of the intention to return, and the impact of being caught on the classification of theft from multiple angles. Having knowledge about the law is important for self-defense and respecting the rights of others. Finally, if you have any questions about the law, please feel free to share them. I look forward to hearing your opinions and experiences.
