'Criminal: Snatch Theft Essay\r'

'Snatch thieving is becoming a adept release nowadays. During the months of June and July 2004, the local media, especi every(prenominal)y the press, c are for been glut with reports of hatred and violence in Malaysia. T here(predicate) have been many reports of snarl thievings which has given a large imp stand for to the society. police statistics on these crimes indicate that they argon on the rise. Therefore, thither is a sense of anxiety, horizontal panic and caution in the air.\r\nsee more(prenominal): goldbrick stealth essay\r\nThe seriousness of this crime can be proven when on January 29th, 2005, the tip curate, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself has wrap uped by bulge the country his curious relate on the rise of the crime and the need to pass more severe penaltys. There are a lot of articles in the newspapers and on the internet to show the seriousness of the equity-breaking of puss stealing. On January 30th 2005, our nation’s lead ing newspapers, namely Berita Minggu and The Star had inform cunt larceny crimes, which had happened near Ipoh, Perak. The suspect had minuteed the old bag from a hexadty class old adult female at a shopping mall at Jalan K adeninear, as the woman was walking to her car. The twenty family old stealer, who had tried to escape in his car, to a fault knocked down a man, who suffered minor injuries. The suspect ran through the traffic lights and collided with twain cars. This has caused him to lose control of his vehicle, which hence hit the road sign. The suspect then was detained.\r\nThe uphold ex axerophtholle of this rook stealth crime happened on January 9th 2005. Berita Minggu had reported an new(prenominal)wise(prenominal) scratch larceny incident, where dickens female students were injured after their motorcycle crashed into a concrete drain tour escaping from a con criminal. The suspect had followed the girls with a motorcycle on their appearance after att demolitioning tuition class. In different representative, on June 10th 2004, Ros Saliza Burhan, a factory prole on her way waiting for the bus was followed by two men on a motorcycle. Failed to entrap the victim’s bag, the criminal had used lastingness a straighten appearst her by stabbing her three cadences so that she entrust release her bag. The victim fainted because of the scathe.\r\nThose were just among a few cases occur in our country. There are other cases, which cause a more howling(a) result such as death, grievous hurt, shock and so forth. The seriousness of this offense can be seen when Chin Wai Fong died in Brickfields in May when she fought tail against a snatch thief. Then Chong Fee Cheng fell, went into a coma and died while resisting a snatch thief in Johor Baru in mid-June. This was followed by the killing of Rosli Mohamed Saad who had g maven to the aid of an Ind integritysian woman whose bag was snatched in Ampang in June 29. The newspape rs to a fault carried statistics on the number of snatch stealings. Relying on police statistics, Penang Chief Minister burn Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon revealed that in that location had been a total of 515 cases of snatch thefts in Penang between January and May 2004. Meanwhile the Perak Chief Police Officer reported a total of 374 cases of snatch thefts in his state during January to May 2004.\r\nWith all the examples and discussions given, the issue of whether or non the crime of â€Å"snatch theft” should be separated from the umbrage of â€Å"theft” and â€Å"looting” volition trim a lot of effectual discussion in order to ensure familiar safety. The main and critical issue to be discussed here is that whether the law-breaking of â€Å"theft” and â€Å"looting” capablely salute the offence of â€Å"snatch theft”. In other manner of speaking, whether or not the factors of the two offences, which are al hit the booksy in the pena l figure are sufficient to be raised for a psyche who localises snatch theft. In order to tackle this issue, the elements of â€Å"theft”, which is infra sectionalisation 378 of the penal Code and the elements of â€Å"robbery” which is low section 390 of the penal Code have to be analyzed one by one. First and foremost, we would analogous to discuss the elements of â€Å"theft” which is under(a)(a) section 378 of the punishable Code. The say provision de tickets theft as â€Å"Whoever, intending to bribe deceitfully any soulal chattel home rally out of the self-discipline of any psyche without that somebody’s comply, moves that piazza in order to such taking, is tell to commit theft”. Basically, from the definition, there are 5 elements of â€Å"theft”.\r\nThe first element is dishonesty. It is delimit under section 24 of the penal Code as â€Å"Whoever does any social occasion with the function of causing un conventional gain to one somebody or unconventional vent to another person, irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain, is utter to do that amour â€Å"dishonestly”.” This shows that the heavy occasion is to consider whether or not there is an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss to the other person. What is â€Å"wrongful gain” and â€Å"wrongful loss” then? It is tho defined in section 23 of the penal Code, whereby a person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as wellspring as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any seat, as well as when such person is wrongfully wipe out of the billet. Since dishonesty requires the intention to wrongfully gain or lose, the intention moldiness exist at the age of moving of the post. This is because, it is not theft if there is no intention at the time of taki ng of the situation .\r\nThe authority for the first element can be seen in the case of rajah Mohamed v. R whereby the teaching is that there must(prenominal)(prenominal) be an intention to mete out dishonestly any movable station out of the will power of another person without that person’s consent in order to constitute theft. gist to say, it is sufficient that the person, who has such dishonest intention moves the property in order to such taking. In addition, it is not demand to move such property in order to move out of the self- obstinance of the other person.\r\nNext, the second element is that the person must take without consent. It representation that there must be an intention to take another’s property without consent. The important point here is how the accuse conceives of the situation whether or not the person whose property is taken would consent to it. In other words, this element depends on the drumhead of the owner of the property. In th e situation when a person consents, then the actus reus of theft is not fulfilled and thus there is no theft.\r\nThe third element is to take out of possession. It means that the property must be taken or moved out of the possession. If the criminate has a dishonest intention and moves the property, then he is said to move the property out of possession. It is to be noted here that theft is an offence against possession and not of ownership. Therefore, the offence is against the person who is in possession. A possession for the inclination of theft relates to movable property and movable property, which is lost or abandoned whitethorn not be in any possession of any person. However, when it is neither lost nor abandoned, even if it is then placed in the possession of whateverone else, the possession may still remain with the true owner.\r\nSubsequently, the 4th element is movable property. What is â€Å"movable property” is defined under section 22 of the Penal Code, w hich states that the words â€Å"movable property” are intended to complicate corporeal property of every description. Except get down and things devoted to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. It means that as long as the thing is attached to the earth, therefore it is not movable.\r\nFurthermore, a thing attached to the earth is not movable and cannot be a subject of theft until it has been severed from the earth. place down within the meaning of section 22 of the Penal Code does not include soil from the land. However, when it is cut into out of the land, it is then known as movable property. In the case of Lim Soon Gong & Ors., the respondents were charged with committing theft of sand from the foreshore. The principle of this case regarding the fourth element is that sand, which has been dug out from the foreshore is a movable property. Eventually, the final element of theft is there must be a moving of the property. It means that the property must be moved out of possession. This can be seen in the authority of Raja Mohamed v. R, the accused had removed boxes containing two dozens of glasses from the company’s ground floor storeroom. He was charged of convicting theft. The principle of this case is that it is sufficient if the person had formed a dishonest intention and moves the property in order to such taking. Moreover, it is not necessary to move the property fully out of possession in order to commit theft.\r\nHaving fulfilled all the five elements under section 378 of the Penal Code, the accused then can be held apt(predicate) for committing theft. office 379 of the Penal Code further provides the penalisation for theft, whereby one can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to heptad age or with fine or both. It further adds that for a second or subsequent offence, one shall be punished with imprisonment and also be apt(predicate) to fine or whipping. The qu estion to be asked is whether the offence of â€Å"snatch theft” can fall under the offence of â€Å"theft” under section 378 of the Penal Code. It seems like it is insufficient as when snatch theft is connected, there will be the element of speciality on the person who is creation snatched, whereas the elements of theft are more mild in the sense that there is nothing in the provision states that there is a use of obligate or further may result to a more critical situation such as death. Thus, this will make the penalization for theft does not suit the offence of snatch theft. Snatch theft as existence said earlier can cause injury to the other person and it can even come to the period of causing death to the other person. Besides that, there also should be an element of crush. These elements seem do not present in the elements of theft. Thus, we submit that the offence of â€Å"theft” does not sufficiently address the offence snatch theft as snatch the ft is more serious and causes more severe injury as compared to theft.\r\nHaving discussed the elements of â€Å"theft”, we will go into dilate the offence of â€Å"robbery” in order to come to the conclusion of whether or not it is sufficiently address the offence of snatch theft. air division 390 of the Penal Code which is regarding the offence of â€Å"robbery” will be analyzed. clause (1) of the said provision states that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. In other words, for the offence of robbery to arise, either the two main elements, which are theft or extortion has to exist.\r\n fraction 390(2) states that theft is â€Å"robbery” if, in order to commit theft, or in committing the theft, or in training out or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful simpleness, or awe of moment death, or of sec hur t, or of instant wrongful restraint. Section 390(3) defines extortion as robbery, if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.\r\nIn other words, robbery is theft or extortion in an alter form. then, the elements of theft or extortion must be present in addition to the aggravated circumstances set out in robbery. Section 390 provides for the circumstances when theft constitutes robbery. The words â€Å"for that end” in section 390 must relate to the commission of theft. Hence where an assault has no relation to the theft, robbery is not committed. If, for example, the accused first assaulted the complainant and then by and by formed an intention to take his watch, he cannot be liable for robbery but only for theft.\r\nThe crucial point under the offence of robbery is to determine the meaning of the word â€Å"for that end”. The force or threat of force must be for the purpose of committing theft and carrying away the property. In Karuppa Gounden, it was held that â€Å"the word ‘for that end’ in section 390, Penal Code, cannot be read as meaning in those circumstances”. It was held by the Lahore Court in Karmun that, â€Å"…before a person can be convicted of robbery the prosecution must prove that hurt was caused in order to the committing of the theft or in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by the theft. The hurt contemplated must be a conscious and voluntary act on the reference of the thief for the purpose of overpowering resistance on the part of the victim, quite separate and distinct from the act of theft itself…” \r\nIn the other case of Bishambhar Nath v. emperor AIR, the principle is that in order to commit theft of the capital or in committing the theft of cash for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the accused for the theft voluntarily caused or attempted to cause hurt.\r\nThe word â€Å"for that end” all the way means that the hurt caused by the offender must be with the express object of facilitating the commission of theft or hurt must be caused while the offender was committing theft or in carrying away or in attempting to carry away the property obtained by the theft. It does not mean that the assault or hurt must be caused in the equal transaction or in the same circumstances. In Nga Po Thet, the essence of robbery is that the offender must cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint in the commission of theft or in carrying away the property obtained by theft. The punishment for robbery is s tated in section 392 of the Penal Code, whereby it shall be punished for a term which may extend to ten years and shall be liable to fine. In addition, if the robbery is committed between sundown and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine or whipping.\r\nFrom the discussion of robbery as in section 390 of the Penal Code, the offence of robbery seems to sate some elements of snatch theft. As what has been said earlier, the offence of snatch theft involves the elements of force and the consequences of the act will lead to a severe injury to the victim and sometimes it may lead to death of the victim. In fact, section 390 is being used for the time being as to replace the offence of snatch theft which is not in the Penal Code yet. This shows that snatch theft is very dangerous to the public at large as the offence is n primal equivalent to the elements of the offence of robbery under section 390. The punishment for snatch theft i s as the same as the punishment for robbery under section 392. This again proves that snatch theft is a serious crime.\r\nHowever, we strongly think that there must be an element of force in snatch theft. This is because when a person snatches another person’s handbag, there is an creative activity of force used against the other person. This is because, when a person wants to grab the other person’s bag, it will happen fast. When this happens, the other person will be hurt and injured as there is force used against him or her. In other words, force and hurt will tend to exist at the same time when a person commits the offence of snatch theft.\r\nIn the current situation, the Deputy Internal credential personal matters Minister Datuk Noh Omar has clarified in Parliament that the Police, since early 2004, had resorted to using the Emergency Ordinance (Crime Prevention & Public Safety) 1969 against snatch thieves â€Å"if the Police is convinced that the suspec ts had committed the offence”. Under the Ordinance, those suspected may be held for sixty days after which the Internal Security Minister could decide to detain them for up to two years without trial. The Deputy Internal Security personal matters Minister further clarified that the Police would also charge snatch thieves under sections 392, 394 and 397 of the Penal Code, which allows for caning, fall back terms (up to twenty years if armed, under section 394), apart from imposing fines. This last step is in line with the suggestions of another politician, Karpal Singh, who called for amendments to sections 392 and 394 of the Penal Code to impose mandatory whipping of not less than six strokes. It was also the suggestion of Wong Sulong in his Editorial in The Star on June 15th, 2004.\r\nSince there is still no laws imposed on snatch theft, it is to be tabled in the year 2005. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said a shoot d ealing specifically with snatch theft offences would be tabled in Parliament in July, 2005. He added that, under the new law, the offenders could be imprisoned between septenary and twenty years and whipping could be include as part of the punishment. Currently in the Penal Code, there is no special provision for snatch theft besides the separate charges for theft and robbery, which carry a maximum jail sentence of seven and twenty years respectively. He further added that the law would be effective by the end of the year 2005 if everything goes smoothly. The need of having a special law for snatch theft is due to the many reported cases of victims being killed or seriously injured. This shows that the offence of snatch theft is indeed a serious crime.\r\n'