Larceny is the act of stealing property. It is covered under the principles of common law, but it has its principles that govern the determinacy and proof of larceny. In most cases, when one takes property without force, it is considered normal. However, under larceny, this amount to a criminal offense, which is punishable by law (Piper, and Durnian, 2015). In the society today, cases of theft without force are common and occur in different forms. It is upon the prosecutor to prove to the Jury that the actions of the accused amount to Larceny. There are principles followed under the law in proving larceny.

The first principle is identifying the property.  To prove larceny, an essential element to consider is that the property under consideration did not belong to the accused. The law is very clear in differencing between ownership, control, and possession. It has to be proved that the accused was in possession of property, which was owned and controlled by someone else other than the accused (Hemmens and Walker, 2016). However, to prove larceny, the property must have been taken and moved away. According to law, for there to be stealing, there must be some physical movement of the property under consideration either by the accused or by an agent acting on behalf of the accused. The distance the property is moved does not matter provided it was moved from its initial position. Any slight movement will be enough to prove larceny (Judicial Commission of New South Wales n.d).

Another element to consider is that the accused must have taken the property without the consent of the property owner. It has to be proven that the accused did not have the written or verbal consent from the property owner to move the property. Once proven that the property was owned by someone else and that it was moved, then it has to be proved that the accused had no consent to move the property (Judicial Commission of New South Wales n.d). It must be satisfactory to some standards that the action of taking was without consent. In some cases, consent can be intended. A good example would be if the action of taking the property occurs for several times with the knowledge of the owner without any restriction from the owner could be deemed intended consent. The property owner can allow the accused to take the property only to take legal actions for other purposes. It must be proven without doubt that there was no consent.

Apart from identifying the property and its ownership, the mental state of the accused at the time of taking the property is reviewed. It has to be proved that the intention of the accused was to deprive the owner of the property permanently. It does not always amount to theft if the accused takes the property for a temporary purpose and returns it. However, if at the time of taking the accused realizes that taking the property will permanently deprive the owner of it, then this amounts to stealing (Judicial Commission of New South Wales n.d). What matters, in this case, is the intention of the accused at the time of taking the property. However, if the accused is genuine in claiming that he/she was justified by law to take the property, the accused is not guilty even if the claim is legally wrong. The issue here is what the accused believed at the time of taking. If the accused believed he/she had a legal right to take the property, then this does not amount to stealing. The claim of moral entitlement to the property is not sufficient to prove legal right to property.

Another element in proving larceny is that the property must be dishonestly taken. Honesty is an inner element, which is hard to prove legally. However, applying the standards of ordinary decent people, one can determine instances of dishonesty. In the R v Glenister (1980) case, the collective judgment concluded that “fraudulently equals dishonesty.” Dishonesty must be proved for larceny to apply.

To prove larceny, all the elements above must be proved. The property under question must belong to another person other than the accused. In addition, the accused must have formed the property without consent. If the intention of the accused was too permanently, deprive the owner of the property, and then it amounts to theft. However, if the intention was to use the property temporality and return it, it does not necessarily result in theft. To prove Larceny, all the elements must be proven. If any of the elements cannot be proven, then the accused in not guilty.

Police Application of LEPRA

LEPRA contains most of the powers bestowed on the police while preventing crime. If one is suspected of committing a crime, the police have the power to investigate for the sake of justice. The LEPRA Act empowers the police to stop, search and detain a person with a reasonable ground that the person is carrying illegal goods, drugs, stolen goods and anything else considered illegal (Sanders, 2007). The police can search one’s pockets, car, and bags but only allowed to strip search one on the grounds of urgent circumstances. When conducting a search, the officers involved should provide their names, reasons for search and place of duty.

In the case study “It’s not yours until you pay,” there are descriptions of people stealing items from supermarkets. It is common for people to pick things like nuts and fruits from a supermarket and eat them before they are weighed and paid for. This according to law is a crime since it amounts to shoplifting. According to the LEPRA act section 21, the police are empowered to stop and search a suspect on the grounds of possessing anything stolen or unlawfully obtained (Sanders, 2007). The store owner can take legal action against the woman based on dishonesty. The law says that anyone who dishonestly makes off with the intention to avoid payment is guilty and punishable.

There is then the question of Larceny. Consider the women waiting in the queue and reading magazines. Such magazines are meant to be sold, but in this scenario, the customers will be buying second-hand magazines given their state after being read by people in the queue. The law does not bind with such a situation and considering the supermarket owner deems the actions appropriate since there is no notice indicating restriction, then there is a deemed consent from the store owner allowing the women to read the magazines.

Consider the scenario of the person who removed the green stalks from the hydroponic tomatoes, so they look like the regular, cheaper ones. This amounts to theft since the person will pay less than the supermarket intended. However, proving theft, in this case, is hard. The guy has the consent from the supermarket to take and move the goods to the counter but not to remove the green stalks. Once he pays for the tomatoes, they become his possessions, and he has the full ownership. If the police suspect that he removed the green stalks, they can stop, search but cannot arrest him for possession of the tomatoes. Since the police have no power to arrest a suspect for the sake of further investigations and have no grounds to prosecute the person, then the only option is to offer an unofficial caution. The owner of the store can, however, take legal action against the customer for being dishonest.

The police are mandated to arrest and charge anyone involved in activities punishable by law. This covers all manner of illegal activities from shoplifting to drug trafficking. If the police arrest a drug trafficker, would it be effective to arrest and prosecute the person or question the suspect to identify the source of the drugs? In most of the countries, such suspects are charged with drug trafficking but do it solve the drug trafficking problem. Sometimes arresting and prosecuting is not the answer (Brewer and Wilson, 2013). Most of the drug traffickers do it on behalf of someone else. If the police arrest the trafficker, then the supplier remains at large. Crime is defined by law, but in the real sense, crime should be socially defined. Most of the activities deemed crime are a social phenomenon and should be solved under the common definition of the crime. Consider the issue of sexting. By 30 June 2016, the police had dealt with 3,035 offenders under child exploitation through sexting (Hunt, 2017). Twenty-eight of these cases were prosecuted in court. This is a social problem, and instead of arresting and prosecuting, such children should undergo counseling.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?