Offenses Against Property
| Author | Francis A. Allen |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271626233900106 |
| Published date | 01 January 1962 |
| Date | 01 January 1962 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
57
Offenses
Against
Property
By
FRANCIS
A.
ALLEN
Francis
A.
Allen,
LL.B.,
J.D.
(hon.),
Chicago,
Illinois,
is
Professor
of
Law,
University
of
Chicago.
He
previously
taught
at
Northwestern
and
Harvard
universities.
He
cur-
rently
is
Chairman
of
the
Attorney
General’s
Committee
on
Poverty
and
the
Administra-
tion
of
Federal
Criminal
Justice,
a
member
of
the
Advisory
Committee
of
the
American
Law
Institute’s
Model
Penal
Code,
and
Associate
Editor
of
the
Journal
of
Criminal
Law,
Criminology,
and
Police
Science.
He
was
Drafting
Chairman
of
the
Illinois
Criminal
Code
of
1961.
He
has
published
numerous
articles
in
legal
and
criminological
journals,
principally
on
criminal
and
constitutional
law
topics.
ABSTRACT:
Early
laws
of
crimes
against
property
clearly
identified
the
forms
of
property
necessary
to
the
survival
and
prosperity
of
the
community.
Commercial
and
industrial
de-
velopments
in
the
modern
era
have
made
new
and
difficult
de-
mands
upon
the
law
as
forms
of
property
and
means
to
offend
have
gained
in
number
and
complexity.
The
modern
Ameri-
can
law
of
theft
derives
directly
from
the
common
law
and
from
supplementary
English
legislation.
Larceny,
the
basic
theft
offense,
is
distinguished
by
trespassory
taking
and
in-
cludes
larceny
by
servant
and
by
trick.
Personal
goods
and
chattels
are
larcenable.
False
pretenses,
embezzlement,
and
receiving
stolen
property
also
fall
under
the
laws
of
theft.
There
are
trends
and
proposals
toward
consolidated
theft
stat-
utes
defining
a
single
offense
composed
of
the
elements
of
sev-
eral
theft
offenses.
Certain
offenses
against
property
also
con-
tain
elements
of
peril
to
life
and
limb.
These
offenses
include
robbery
and
extortion,
arson
and
related
offenses,
and
burglary.
The
states
with
their
police
power
are
equipped
to
legislate
directly
on
offenses
against
property.
The
federal
govern-
ment
chiefly
acts
under
its
powers
in
connection
with
foreign
and
interstate
commerce,
revenue,
war,
and
the
postal
system.
Although
Anglo-American
law
has
developed
in
response
to
new
demands,
revision
has
not
generally
kept
pace
with
un-
derlying
economic
changes.
Deficiencies
exist,
and
fundamen-
tal
legislative
reconstruction
is
required.—Ed.
58
HE
origins
of
the
modern
law
of
theft
1 are
to
be
found
in
the
early
stages
of
social
development
when
the
criminal
law
first
begins
to
emerge
as
an
institution’
separate
and
distinct
from
other
modes
of
social
control.
The
early
theft
law
clearly
identified
the
forms
of
property
regarded
as
vital
to
the
community’s
survival
and
prosper-
ity.
Thus,
there
is
evidence
that
the
cattle
raid
and
other
thefts
of
live
stock
were
matters
of
particular
concern
in
Anglo-Saxon
England.
Comparable
atti-
tudes
toward
the
theft
of
horses
and
cattle
were
manifested
on
the
American
frontier
during
the
nineteenth
century.
The
commercial
and
industrial
develop-
ment
which
has
characterized
Western
civilization
in
the
modern
era,
has
made
new
and
more
difficult
demands
on
theft
law.
Because
of
the
antiquity
of
the
law
of
theft
and
because
of
funda-
mental
changes
in
the
relative
signifi-
cance
of the
various
forms
of
property,
the
law
of
property
offenses
is
likely
to
contain
anachronistic
elements.
The
problems
thereby
created
can
be
avoided
only
if
the
law
is
subjected
to
frequent
re-evaluation
and
revision
by
the
law-
making
authority.
Although
the
Anglo-
American
law
has
developed
in
response
to
new
demands
made
upon
it,
the
proc-
ess
of
revision
has
not
generally
kept
pace
with
the
changes
occurring
in
the
underlying
economic
institutions.
The
modern
American
law
of theft
is
derived
directly
from
the
English
com-
mon
law
of
crimes
and
from
the
Eng-
lish
legislation
that
supplemented
or
modified
the
common
law.
Thus,
such
categories
of the
English
law
as
larceny,
false
pretenses,
embezzlement,
and
the
receiving
of
stolen
property
are
ordi-
narily
given
recognition
in
American
statutes
and
judicial
opinions.
This
is
not
to
say
that
the
American
law
is
simply
a
re-enactment
of
the
English
law
of
crimes.
On
the
contrary,
Ameri-
can
legislatures
have
introduced
innu-
merable
modifications
into
the
defini-
tions
of
such
offenses;
and,
in
some
im-
portant
particulars,
the
definitions
vary
from
one
American
jurisdiction
to
an-
other.
In
addition,
all
American
legis-
latures
have
created
offenses
against
property
that
are
not,
and
have
never
been,
part
of
the
English
law
of
crimes.
Some
of
these
statutory
offenses
repre-
sent
minor
extensions
of
the
traditional
offenses
into
new
areas
and
are
often
interpreted
by
reference
to
common
law
principles.
Other
statutory
offenses,
however,
represent
basically
new
efforts
at
penal
regulation.
In
construing
statu-
tory
provisions
of
the
latter
type,
courts
have
found
the
principles
of
the
tradi-
tional
law
to
have
much
less
relevance.
For
the
purposes
of
this
paper,
discus-
sion
is
divided
between
offenses
against
property
and
offenses
against
persons
and
property.
Included
in
the
first
classification
is
description
and
analysis
of
the
traditional
theft
offenses
as
modi-
fied
by
American
legislation,
statutory
provisions
which
consolidate
the
in-
gredients
of
two
or
more
of
the
tradi-
tional
crimes
into
a
single
statutory
offense,
and
statutory
provisions
con-
demning
conduct
other
than
that
en-
compassed
in
the
traditional
categories
of
theft.
Included
in
the
second
clas-
sification
are
those
offenses
which
by
definition
involve
conduct
presenting
threats
not
only
to
the
ownership
and
enjoyment
of
property,
but
to
the
se-
curity
of
life
and
bodily
integrity
as
well.
1
The
word
"theft"
is
employed
in
this
pa-
per
as a
generic
term
encompassing
all
or
most
of
the
particular
offenses
against
property.
This
is
the
usual
American
convention.
In
some
American
statutes,
however,
the
word
"theft"
is
used
to
designate
a
particular
of-
fense,
most
frequently
larceny.
In
other
stat-
utes
an
offense
of
theft
containing
the
ingredi-
ents
of
several
of
the
traditional
offenses
against
property
is
created.
A
discussion
of
the
"consolidated"
theft
statutes
appears
in
the
text
infra.
To continue reading
Request your trial