The Case of Old Woman Who Stole Some Fruits in Slam Area

In the case of old woman who stole some fruits in slam area, people may think that her action is wrong because she broke the rules defined by the law. However, law is not rigid and made on the basis of justice. For that reason, law needs to consider the standard of morality to determine a case as right or wrong. That is why breaking rules is not always wrong on the eyes of the law. It may be right if there are reasons that qualify the standard of morality as defined in the concept of justice. In the case of that old woman, I as a judge deem her case as innocence because her case has reasons that qualify such standard. In the following passages, I will explain those reasons consisting of why her action is justified and why it is injustice to deem her case as guilty.
Firstly, the case of the old woman is justified because stealing some fruits is different with other crimes. The level of its seriousness is not as high as killing, corruption or other serious crimes. It is different with killing because killing creates physical damage to the victims and psychological damage to the relatives of the victims. It is also different with corruption because corruption eats huge amount of money that comes from taxes paid by society as a whole. In the case of those serious crimes, the suspects deserve to be given retribution as a return of the lost caused by the crimes and as a tool to deter them. However, it is not proportionate to give punishment to the suspect who stole fruits because it does not give huge damage to individuals or significant lost of properties. Because proportionality is one of the elements of criminal justice system, it is injustice to punish the suspect for a small case about stealing fruits. Justice can only be obtained if the case of the old woman is forgiven.

Secondly, the case of the old woman is justified because that case has different causation with other crimes. In the case of the old woman, she stole fruits because she was suffering from hunger and she needed to eat to survive. The causation of her crime is on the basis of good purpose – to survive. It is different with killing or corruption. People kill because of hatred or vengeance. People corrupt because of insatiable greed. The causation of those crimes are bad, so the suspects deserve proportional punishments. However, in the case of the old woman, she just wanted to get strength from the fruits she stole. She never had the intention to hurt or create damage to anyone like killing or corruption. As human, she needs to be treated like human. It is the nature of human to eat to live. That is a virtue that needs to be taken into consideration to deem the case of the old woman as innocence.

Thirdly, the case of the old woman is justified because the old woman had no other choice but to steal so that she could live. It is imperative to measure the causes of crimes in trial because doing crime may be the only option to defend the lives of those who do it. For instance, a self defence murder can be deemed as innocence because the suspect has no other alternative to save himself or herself from being killed. In the case of the old woman, she had no choice but to steal because she had no money, no job or no salary and she still needed to eat to live. So, the only thing she could do was steal some fruits. That case is different with stealing committed by young people because they have a choice – they have capability to search jobs including labour intensive jobs that do not require education background. That is why they can be deemed guilty. But, the old woman is too powerless to look for job, so she can not buy foods on her own. For that reason, her case should be deemed as innocence.

Fourthly, it is injustice to deem the case of the old woman as guilty because her current situation is not entirely her fault. The reason why people in slam area are poor is partly because of the government. The government has the responsibility to distribute the infrastructure across the nation so that each part of society including those who live in slam area can be prosperous. If the area the old woman is living is prosperous, there must be a community service that serves the lives of elder people like those built in the cities. If such community service exists, the old woman would not have to steal foods any more. However, there is no service provided for elder people in slam area due to lack of infrastructure given by the government. Because it is also the fault of the government, the old woman is innocent for the petty crime she commit.

Fifthly, it is injustice to deem the case of the old woman as guilty because she is too fragile and too weak to be put in a cell or to be charged with fine. In the cell, the old woman has to struggle harder because she does not have much strength to be involved in the activities in the prison. She also has no source of income to pay the fine because she has not much power to look for jobs. Giving her punishment is only giving double pressures to her life. She is old and should be given comfort in the last moments of her life. Because she can not carry the burden of the possible punishments given, she should be forgiven for the crime she did.

In conclusion, the crime committed by the old woman – stealing fruits – is tolerable dan the stakeholder who committed the crime – the old woman – does not deserve to be given punishment. The crime does not posses high seriousness such as killing or corruption. The motive behind the crime is to survive and there is no other option the old woman can do to survive because of her powerless body. All crimes can not be generalized because there is always a different reason why the crime is committed – whether or not the reason has good morale. That reason is also a burden proof that can be used to determine the righteousness of a defendant in trial. In that case, the old woman has all the right reasons that possess good morale, so she should not be punished for stealing the fruits. The old woman deserves to be innocent because she is.