[16] Bacon, Maxims of the Law, reg. 5 (Works, vii. 343).
[17] Reg. v. Dudley and Stephens, in Law Reports, Queen’s Bench Division, xiv. 286.
[18] Hale, op. cit. i. 54.
[19] Britton, i. 11, vol. i. 42.
[20] Westgöta-Lagen II. þiufua bolker, 14, p. 164 sq.
[21] Gratian, Decretum, iii. 1. 11.
[22] Ibid. iii. 5. 26.
[23] St. Matthew, xii. 1 sqq.
According to Muhammedan law, the hand is not to be cut off for stealing any article of food that is quickly perishable, because it may have been taken to supply the immediate demands of hunger.[24] We are told that “no Chinese magistrate would be found to pass sentence upon a man who stole food under stress of hunger.”[25] In ancient Peru, according to Herrera, “he that robb’d without need was banish’d to the Mountains Andes, never to return without the Inga’s leave, and if worth it paid the value of what he had taken. He that for want stole eatables only was reprov’d, and receiv’d no other punishment, but enjoyn’d to work, and threatened, that if he did so again, he should be chastiz’d by carrying a stone on his back, which was very disgraceful.”[26] We even hear of savages who regard “compulsion by necessity” as a ground of extenuation. Among the West African Fjort robbery of plantations, committed in a state of great hunger, is exempt from punishment in case there is no deception or secrecy in the matter; however, payment for damage done is expected.[27] Cook says of the Tahitians:—“Those who steal clothes or arms, are commonly put to death, either by hanging or drowning in the sea; but those who steal provisions are bastinadoed. By this practice they wisely vary the punishment of the same crime, when committed from different motives.”[28]
[24] Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, p. 121.