When stealing food is no crime

The ruling by the Italian highest court of appeal on stealing of food is momentous. It is certainly going to be reckoned as a milestone in the history of judiciary anywhere. The court set aside an earlier lower court sentence of six months' jail and a fine of Euro 100 before announcing its remarkable verdict. The court declared that stealing of a small amount of food in order to stave off hunger is not a crime. Here the case concerns a homeless man named Ostriakov of Ukranian origin, who stole two pieces of cheese and a packet of sausages worth $4.50 in dire need of satisfying his hunger.
His theft was detected before he could leave the supermarket. The lower court found him guilty and duly convicted the man. Sure enough, under conventional legal provision, any country will consider his act punishable. The Italian lower court followed the law book. It possibly could not do otherwise because law must prevail.
What then prompted the Supreme Court of Cessation to overturn the conviction is crucial. It duly took into account that in a civilised country not even the worst of people should starve. New light is shed on the issue of food stealing in the face of overriding need for satisfying the most basic biological need of man. Indirectly, accusing fingers have been pointed to the state, the system nations the world over have built up for organising society. There are flaws in the system.
At a time when 1.3 billion tonnes of food are wasted worldwide annually, people going hungry anywhere is simply unacceptable. In developed countries the supermarkets are in the forefront of wasting food. Food wastage on an outrageous scale on the one hand and on the other hunger for a small number of people there show that the system is built on wrong premises. Against the background of 7.1 million tonnes of food wasted annually in France, the French government has, therefore, come up with a legislation stipulating mandatory contract with charities for food donation instead of throwing away or destroying the same. Non-compliance will invite a penalty of Euro 3,750.
The Italian Supreme Court has extolled the humanitarian value above the man-made institution, court that is. Admittedly legal provisions have a limit to reach where conscience bleeds for the helpless and the needy. The highest court in Italy has amply made it clear that law cannot address problems facing a world that tips the balance in favour of the rich, the privileged and the influential. Humanitarian considerations are more appropriate in dealing with situations where the ill-fated, helpless and sick mortals are concerned.
By doing so the highest court has only drawn attention of the Italian government to the hardships of people. The French government has as well taken note of the prevailing reality. In recent years a growing number of families, students, unemployed and homeless people are in desperate need of food aid. Some of them are 'foraging supermarket bins at night to feed themselves'.
In an imperfect system, the French legislation is likely to come as a temporary relief. Is the Italian government ready to take cue from the landmark verdict to do something similar? If not, there is every likelihood of the homeless and hungry to feel inspired by the verdict to try their luck of secretly removing from stores food not costing more than $5.0. After all Ostriakov's theft was considered small because the price of his stolen food was below the $5.0 mark.