A community has enacted a law that everyone must recycle. All recyclables are put out in boxes marked "Property of the City of so-and-so". The city then sells the recyclables for city budget money. A homeless guy digs out cans and gets arrested for theft of city property. What is his best defense? I said that he was illiterate and couldn't read the writing on the boxes. My teacher didn't agree and said to try again. This is for a paralegal class.
2006-10-13 15:08:11 · 16 answers · asked by Flower Girl 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You will have to dig into this deeper, but refuge is accessible to the public until such a time as it is collected. You might find the necessary argument by comparing it to the Police use of trash as evidence with having to obtain a warrant. Once it is on the curb it is considered abandoned. It can be argued that the container may be marked as city property but the content being garbage is not. Work it from that line. I think you may get a decent defense out of it from there.
2006-10-13 15:15:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think your best course of action would be to pay the damages. How much could this be worth? There is no way he would spend jail time over this, and the damages might be $5?
But in a purely hypothetical sense, if you really wanted to defend this guy, I would argue that the ownership of the recyclables has not changed hands from the resident to the city. Therefore, the city has no standing to file a lawsuit against this person. Think about this: If someone triped over the can and broke their neck, would the city be responsible? No. Therefore, since the resident still assumes liability for the object which is still on their property, they are the sole owners of the cans until it is transferred to the city.
2006-10-13 23:14:52 · answer #2 · answered by Christopher 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The city better have a charter to stand behind this stupid rule.
Since the city is enriching itself on the recycling and the average citizen does not profit by it, the homeless man should bring suit against the city , attack is the best defense. A good Lawyer could get this dismissed and help the homeless man win against the city. He is unlawfully singled out and victimized by the city.
2006-10-13 23:33:42 · answer #3 · answered by mimi 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Penn & Teller in one episode of their Showtime series "Bullshit!" make the argument that recycling is actually more wasteful and most costly than obtaining and processing raw materials into new items, and the only reason any city would begin a recycling program is because the government provides subsidies to do so, working under the myth that recycling is good for the environment and necessary to maintain our standard of living.
One could argue that the city loses nothing when someone takes recycling materials, because there's nothing to gain by actually recycling them, and they've already been paid whether they pick up a million pounds or one pound.
2006-10-14 01:10:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a clever question with a deceptively simple answer: there is no theft.
Theft may be defined as the asportation of property not belonging to an actor who removes the property of another with the intent of not returning it.
The boxes are a red herring because there was no attempt to take the boxes marked "city property."
The sole legal question is this: is the asportated refuse/garbage considered "property of another"? I think not. It belongs as much to me as it belongs to the homeless person. And I don't want it.
So the answer, my dear Watson, is that there is no theft.
2006-10-14 00:29:25 · answer #5 · answered by AJGLaw 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The writing on the box only refers to the box, not the contents itself. The recycling material does not become city property until it comes into their possession when a city employee picks it up.
2006-10-13 22:18:49 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would argue that only the boxes themselves were city property. The content in the box is refuse. It is no different the going through a trash can of non-recyclables.
2006-10-13 22:12:41 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
A sad state of affairs for sure. That would be the best defence I could think of too. But since your teacher is the judge and sounds like he/she is on an ego trip I think the homeless guy is going to jail. But at least he will be warm and get 3 squares a day for awhile. Or maybe he wasn't stealing but adding the beer can he just finished? Sorry if I'm not serious enough for you ...I tried
2006-10-13 22:15:14 · answer #8 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ignorance of a law is no excuse. That is probably why the teacher told you to try again. Since the person probably cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for him.The lawyer should know which is the best way to go from there. The outcome might depend a lot on whether the person has had prior convictions or not.
2006-10-13 22:31:05 · answer #9 · answered by Max 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course in real life you can prosecute, I have and have gotten people put in county jail for it.
It was a larger trash container
Thier defense was that the container was city property but the trash is not the city property untill it is picked up
The judge still found them guilty
2006-10-13 22:41:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋