Mouth robbery

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mouth robbery is a colloquial term that is no longer used by German law, which dealt with the theft or misappropriation of food or luxury goods or other household items in small quantities or of insignificant value for immediate consumption. This criminal offense was abolished with effect from January 1, 1975, so that the higher penalties for theft or embezzlement can now be imposed.

story

According to the Bible, there were cases of permitted mouth theft:

“When you come to someone else's vineyard, you can eat as many grapes as you like until you are full, only you are not allowed to put anything in a vessel. If you come through someone else's cornfield, you can tear off ears of wheat with your hand, but you must not swing the sickle in someone else's cornfield. "

- ( Dtn 23.25f  EU )

In the old version of the Criminal Code, mouth robbery was vaguely called "misappropriation of consumables" (Section 370 No. 5 StGB old version). In the draft of the penal code of 1847, the application of an ordinary punishment for theft to the “theft of field and garden crops” no longer appeared appropriate. The drafts of the Field Police Regulations of 1844 and 1846 only wanted to make this offense a criminal offense in the event of consumption. The old Reich Criminal Code (RStGB, 1872–1953) provided for a category of criminal offenses that were designated as mitigated (privileged) cases of theft and embezzlement. This included family and house theft (Section 247 of the Criminal Code), emergency theft (Section 248a), theft of consumables (“mouth theft”; Section 370 (1) No. 5 of the Criminal Code) as well as forest and field theft.

With great resistance, the robbery of the mouth was recorded as a violation of the RStGB of January 1, 1872 ("emergency theft"), on June 19, 1912 the emergency theft found an offense in § 248 StGB old version. This resulted in two privileged cases of theft and embezzlement , namely emergency theft / emergency withholding of low value items (Section 248a StGB old version) and the robbery of the mouth (Section 370 (1) No. 5 StGB old version). From around 1890, the thefts of department stores increased, so that the criminal offenses of emergency theft and theft of the mouth were often used. Both provided for a reduction in sentences for personal emergencies that were not their fault. Emergency misappropriation (Section 248a, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, old version) and “Mouth robbery” (Section 248a, Paragraph 2 of the StGB, old version) differ in terms of the stolen item. Misappropriation covered all things, including money; Mouth robbery, on the other hand, was limited to food and beverages as well as household items. In the case of emergency the perpetrator must have acted out of personal need; in the case of mouth theft, the immediate consumption - also by relatives - was in the foreground. Mouth robbery - from a legal point of view "the misappropriation of consumables" - was punished with a fine (maximum amount increased to 500 DM in 1964) or imprisonment for up to six weeks.

These criminal offenses provided for some vague legal terms that had to be specified in the later case law of the Reichsgericht . “Food” was the food and drink intended to nourish the human body, including seed potatoes, while they were still edible. "Luxury foods" are substances that are absorbed by the body and are suitable and intended to exert a stimulus on the nervous system, such as tobacco, cigars, perfumes, but not flowers or fuel. "Objects of domestic use" are all objects that are used in ordinary life to satisfy a domestic need, regardless of whether this consumption is associated with an immediate enjoyment of the person or not, e.g. B. Cattle feed, but not items of laundry.

Current legal situation

Contrary to popular belief, Mundraub used to be by no means exempt from punishment , but only between spouses and certain relatives. The fruits of cultivated plants could not and must not simply be picked. Unauthorized entry into fenced areas was and is trespassing . Only in the case of wild plants can fruit and the like be carefully removed and appropriated in small quantities for personal use, provided that entry is not prohibited ( Section 39 (3) BNatSchG).

Since the criminal law reform, the theft of consumables was abolished as a separate offense on January 1, 1975. There is no longer any distinction made between stealing an apple and a pen; today's theft in the context of the earlier mouth robbery is therefore an intensification of the penalties and not a decriminalization . Violations such as the theft of consumables have been abolished, individual previous violations have been upgraded to offenses - including the theft of consumables as the theft of low-value items . According to the law currently in force, theft and embezzlement of low-value items are only prosecuted in accordance with Section 248a of the Criminal Code if a criminal complaint is filed. Since the theft of even low-value items is now one of the offenses, the threat of punishment against any form of shoplifting has become considerably more severe .

Switzerland

In Switzerland, criminal law was regulated by the cantons until 1942. In most cantons, mouth theft was recognized as a privileged form of theft. Anyone who stole food of little value “to satisfy a moment's lust” was guilty. The federal penal code, which came into force in 1942, no longer knew the name of mouth robbery, instead the punishment for “theft”. The theft was guilty of stealing something “of little value out of need, recklessness or to satisfy a desire” (Art. 138 aStGB). The courts interpreted this fact very broadly, including the theft of a book as a theft. In 1995 the criminal offense of theft was abolished, so that mouth robbery was prosecuted as theft, which in principle led to a tightening of the penalties. However, in Switzerland the theft of low-value items is only punished upon application and only with a fine (Art. 172 StGB ).

Austria

In Austria the theft of low-value movable property out of necessity or rashness is punished by the catch- all offense of theft . It is an authorization offense ; if the injured person is a relative, there is no criminal liability. Likewise, the illegal appropriation of soil products or soil components (such as tree fruits, forest products, deciduous wood ) of lesser value is not a criminal offense. In Austria, the penalty is imprisonment of up to 1 month or a fine ( Section 141 StGB ).

See also

Web links

Wiktionary: Mouth robbery  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Rudolf Ludwig Decker, Archive for Prussian Constitutional Law , 1856, p. 145
  2. Jump up ↑ Hans Welzel, Das deutsche Strafrecht: Eine systematischen Abo , 1954, p. 255 ff
  3. Werner Schubert, Sources for the Reform of the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law , 1919, p. 397 f
  4. RGSt 1, 223
  5. RGSt 4, 72
  6. z. B. peat; RGSt 9, 46
  7. RGSt 46, 247, 261
  8. RGSt 46, 379; RGSt 47, 247, 265
  9. RGSt 46, 422
  10. Detlef Briesen, Warenhaus, Massen Konsum und Sozialmoral , 2001, p. 139
  11. BGE 71 IV 7
  12. What does a mouth robber steal