Long, Gills W.

English

Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center

Louisiana Law ReviewVolume 10 | Number 4May 1950Theft - The Effect of Inflation Upon the Value-Penalty RatioGills W. LongThis Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.Repository CitationGills W. Long, Theft - The Effect of Inflation Upon the Value-Penalty Ratio, 10 La. L. Rev. (1950)Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol10/iss4/8LOUISIANA LAW REVIEWremarks. However, the remarks were apparently considered asreversible error per se:(1) "I did lose control of myself; every drop of my whiteman's blood did boil in me and the white man's blood of othermen in this court rose up in righteous indignation, when thisnegro woman on trial, in a crowded court-room in the parish ofGrant, and in the town of Colfax, with its past history, usedslanderous... language against the officers of Grant parish andagainst white men."5 7(2) "Gentlemen of the jury, it is high time to put a stopto these murders by negro women, by hanging some of them.... The only way to put a stop to it is to bring a verdict ofguilty as charged and have a hanging."5 8(3) "Notwithstanding the fact that the prosecuting witnesswas a prostitute, she was a white woman and belonged to thesame race to which their mothers belonged.9(4) "The defendant should not be tried by the same lawas a white man. . . .You can't try a negro by negro evidencethe same as you can try a white man by white evidence."60While it is not possible to draw a clear line between per-missible and prejudicial racial comments, one fact stands out inbold relief-the prosecution should be extremely cautious toavoid the possibility of clouding the issue of guilt or innocenceby allusions to the defendant's race.LAWRENCE E. DONOHOETHEFT-THE EFFECT OF INFLATION UPON THEVALUE-PENALTY RATIOThe difficulty of making the punishment fit the crime haslong been a serious problem. This question has weighed heavilyon the minds of laymen and lawyers alike. Public consciousnessof the problem is clearly demonstrated by the laws and litera-ture that have come down through the centuries.Retribution was stressed by the Code of Hammurabi, 2250B.C., which provided that, "If a man destroy the eye of anotherman, they shall destroy his eye."' Cicero evidenced a more hu-57. State v. Jones, 127 La. 694, 697, 53 So. 959, 960 (1911).58. State v. Brown, 148 La. 357, 358, 86 So. 912, 913 (1921).59. State v. Perry, 124 La. 931, 942, 50 So. 799, 803 (1909).60. State v. Brice, 163 La. 392, 393, 111 So. 798 (1927).1. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (London, 1903)[VOL. XCOMMENTSmane approach to the problem when in 78 B.C. he wrote, "Wemust take care that crimes are not more severely punished thanthey deserve, and that one be not punished for an act for whichanother is not called to account."'2 The Bill of Rights of England3and the Constitution of the United States4 both contain provi-sions that neither excessive fines should be imposed, nor crueland unusual punishments inflicted. A famous formulation of theproblem is to be found in William S. Gilbert's Mikado:"My object all sublimeI shall achieve in time-To let the punishment fit the crime-The punishment fit the crime." 5Louisiana law has reacted strangely when faced with thisproblem. The results have often been unreasonable and some-times even humorous. At one time in Louisiana the punishmentwas more severe for shooting at a man and missing him6 thanfor shooting at and hitting him.7 Assault with intent to robcalled for greater punishment8 than actual robbery.9 Punish-ment for the stealing crimes has been characterized by the sameinconsistency. Under the Louisiana Criminal Statutes prior tothe 1942 Criminal Code, theft of automobile parts, regardless oftheir value, was a mere misdemeanor. 10 On the other hand, thetheft of a gas bracket, no matter how trifling its value, was afelony which could be punished by a five year term in the statepenitentiary."'The problem of the stealing crimes resolves itself into adetermination of the proper basis for fixing the penalty. Is thisbasis to be the value of the object stolen, the nature of the object,or the social status of the thief or the owner?The evolution of a democratic society has ruled out thestatus of thief and owner as basis, though at one time the per-sonalities involved had a great deal of bearing on the nature and2. Cicero, De Officils, Bk. I, Ch. 25, § 89.3. Thompson, An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John'London, 1829) 110.4. U.S. Const., Art. VIII.5. Gilbert, The Mikado (London, 1928) 68 (Act II).6. La. Act 59 of 1896, as last amended by La. Act 9 of 1912, § 1 [Dart'sCrim. Stats. (1932) § 766].7. La. Act 44 of 1890, § 1 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 765].8. La. Act 59 of 1896, as last amended by La. Act 9 of 1912, § 1 [Dart'sCrim. Stats. (1932) § 766].9. La. Rev. Stats. of 1870, § 809 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1123].10. La. Act 33 of 1926 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1062].11. La. Act 154 of 1918, § 1 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 10633.1950)500 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [VOL. Xseverity of the penalty imposed. A theft from a noble once de-manded greater punishment than a similar theft from one oflesser rank. Likewise, theft by a peasant resulted in more severepunishment than did a similar theft committed by a lord.Elimination of privileged class considerations leaves onlythe nature of the object stolen and the value thereof as possiblebases for determining the penalty to be imposed. Fundamen-tally, both of these are an evaluation of the object stolen; theformer an evaluation placed there by the folkways and moresof the people and the latter an evaluation in terms of dollars andcents.During frontier days of our country, and even comparativelyrecently, horse stealing, regardless of the value of the horse, wasmuch more severely punished 12 than the stealing of some otherobject of the same economic value. Other theft and larcenystatutes provided special punishments for the theft of certainkinds of articles.13The growing accessibility of objects to all who possess thenecessary capital has emphasized the monetary valuation of theobject, while de-emphasizing the special social values. In linewith this general modern trend, the Louisiana Criminal Code,adopted in 1942, combined all forms of stealing in a single "theft"crime 14 and graded the penalty entirely according to the eco-nomic value of the object stolen.The penalty gradations of the Criminal Code of 1942 werebased on the general theft and larceny statutes in effect at thetime.15 These statutes had been enacted and the valuation-penalty relationship established as long ago as 187416 and 1902,17with a minor amendment in 1936.18The three grades of the crime of theft are as follows: 112. La. Rev. Stats. of 1870, § 814 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1061].13. La. Act 64 of 1910 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1057] (stealing cattle);La. Act 45 of 1918 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1059] (stealing hogs, sheep);La. Act 154 of 1918, § 1 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1063] (stealing plumbingfixtures); La. Act 33 of 1926 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1062] (stealingautomobile parts).14. Art. 67, La. Crim. Code of 1942.15. See Comment, Art. 67, La. Crim. Code of 1942.16. La. Act 124 of 1874, § 8 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1053].17. La. Act 107 of 1902, § 5 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (1932) § 1054].18. La. Act 150 of 1936, §§ 1-3 [Dart's Crim. Stats. (Supp. 1942) §§ 1054.1-1054.3].19. Art. 67, La. Crim. Code of 1942.COMMENTSValue of object stolen Penalty$100.00 or more ............ Imprisonment for not over ten years.$20.00 to $100.00 ........... Imprisonment for not over two years,or fine not over $300.00 or both.Less than $20.00 ........... Imprisonment for not over six months,or fine not over $100.00 or both.At the time this relationship was established the purchasingpower of the dollar was far greater than at the present time.The question quite naturally arises as to whether or not, in viewof the decrease in dollar value, this relationship is presentlydesirable.Since the value of money depends upon the amount of goodsand services that can be purchased with it, the cost of livingindex will here be used as the basis for determining the valueof the dollar. This increase in the cost of living (and conse-quently the decrease in the value of the dollar) can readily beseen from the graph below. 20As a result of this inflation, many objects now have a dollarvalue far in excess of their dollar value at the time the relation-ship was formulated. For example, the theft of an article worth$71.00 in 1913 would amount to theft of property valued at $170.00in 1948, and would subject the offender to a possible ten yearprison sentence. The penalty for stealing the same object hasautomatically increased. Similarly, an object that was valuedat $15.00 in 1913 would in 1948 be valued at approximately $37.50.The penalty for stealing this object in 1913 could not have ex-ceeded six months imprisonment while the same theft, if com-mitted in 1948, could have been punished by imprisonment foras much as two years at hard labor.It is appropriate that the Louisiana legislature should exam-ine its penalties for theft in order that they may be adjustedto conform with present day dollar values. Present day infla-tionary standards will probably not continue, but it is believedthat it can be safely said that price levels will never return tothe 1913 level. The desire for stability in the law would probablyrule out a sliding scale of penalties, depending upon the cost of20. The statistics used in the graph and examples are those of con-sumer's Price Index for moderate-income families in large cities of theUnited States as a whole. Statistics compiled by state are not availableand those for the cities of Louisiana are available only for the past fewyears. Because of this and since statistics of the cities of the United Statesas a whole represent approximately the change in the cities of Louisiana, thelatter were used to more completely cover the period under discussion.1950]LOUISIANA LAW REVIEWliving index at certain stated periods. A conservative approachto the problem might suggest a doubling of the value lines ofgradation of theft. Thus, theft, carrying a possible penalty often years imprisonment, would require taking of property valuedat $200.00.It may be argued that the present penalty clause does notwork a hardship or result in injustice because of mitigating fac-tors. The desire of prosecutors to dispose quickly of cases hasoften led them to set a small value on the object so that the case[VOL. XCOMMENTSmay be heard by a five man jury, or even by the judge withouta jury. Also, the difficulty of proving actual value has oftenled the prosecutor to set a comparatively small value on theobject stolen. This same difficulty of proof often causes juriesto return verdicts of guilty of theft of a smaller amount than thatcharged in the indictment. Undoubtedly there are numerouscases where the prosecutor realized that the penalty was inap-propriate to the seriousness of the theft, and reduced the chargeaccordingly. Frequently the judge, in sentencing, considers theactual value and the nature of the object stolen as well as itspresent day dollar value.Penalty clauses, however, should not be predicated uponanticipated administrative or judicial leniency, and should beadjusted from time to time so as to provide a penalty as nearlyas possible in keeping with the gravity of the offense. An im-portant circumstance to be considered in establishing gradationsof punishment for crimes against property is the existing dollar-commodity relationship.GILLIS W. LONGA CHARTER GUIDE FOR THE INCORPORATION OFNONPROFIT CORPORATIONS UNDER THE 1948 ACT*By enacting "The Nonprofit Corporation Act"' the 1948 ses-sion of the legislature of Louisiana corrected a deficiency in ourlaw, providing a method of incorporation for non-business cor-porations. The broad definition of a "nonprofit corporation" con-tained in the act 2 will bring under regulation many types oforganizations and groups which hitherto have not clearly comeunder any applicable laws. The act abandoned the "nontradingcorporation" test of the old statute 3 and substituted a moresimple and inclusive test. If the corporation falls outside the classof corporations organized for pecuniary profit or gain to their* La. Act 455 of 1948 [La. R.S. (1950) § 12:101 et seq.]. For a shortbut excellent discussion of the outstanding features of the act and com-parison with the business and the old "nontrading corporation act," thereader is referred to Louisiana Legislation of 1948 (1948) 9 LOUISIANA LAWREVIEW 18, 68.1. Short title of La. Act 455 of 1948.2. La. Act 455 of 1948, § 1, H [La. R.S.(1950) § 12:101, 8]: "'NonprofitCorporation' means a corporation organized for a purpose not involvingpecuniary profit or gain to its shareholders or members, and not payingdividends or other pecuniary remuneration to its shareholders or members;provided that the corporation may pay reasonable compensation or salariesfor services rendered."S. La. Act 254 of 1914, as amended by La. Act 190 of 1924 and 146 of 1936.1950]

Theft - The Effect of Inflation Upon the Value-Penalty Ratio

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1699&context=lalrev

Theft - The Effect of Inflation Upon the Value-Penalty Ratio

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center