By the Athenian Laws, the crime of Theft was punished, by paying double the value of what was stolen, to the party robbed; and as much more to the public.—Solon introduced a law, enjoining every person to state in writing, by what means he gained his livelihood; and if false information was given, or he gained his living in an unlawful way, he was punished with death.—A similar law prevailed among the Egyptians.
The Lex Julia of the Romans made Theft punishable at discretion; and it was forbidden, that any person should suffer death, or even the loss of a member, for this crime.—The greatest punishment which appears to have been inflicted for this offence, in its most aggravated circumstances, was four-fold restitution.
By the Jewish Law, Theft was punished in the same manner: with the addition of a fine according to the nature of the offence; excepting in cases where men were stolen, which was punished with death.
In China, Theft is punished by the bastinadoe, excepting in cases of a very atrocious nature, and then the culprit is condemned to the knoutage—a contrivance not unlike the pillory in this country.
The ancient Laws of this kingdom punished the crime of Theft differently.—Our Saxon ancestors did not at first punish it capitally.—The Laws of King Ina[12] inflicted the punishment of death, but allowed the thief to redeem his life, Capitis estimatione, which was sixty shillings; but in case of an old offender, who had been often accused, the hand or foot was to be cut off.
After various changes which took place under different Princes, in the rude and early periods of our history, it was at length settled in the 9th of Henry the First, (A.D. 1108,) that for theft and robbery, offenders should be hanged; this has continued to be the law of the land ever since, excepting in the county palatine of Chester; where the ancient custom of beheading felons was practised some time after the Law of Henry the First; and the Justices of the Peace of that county, received one shilling from the King, for every head that was cut off.
Montesquieu seems to be of opinion that as thieves are generally unable to make restitution, it may be just to make theft a capital crime.—But would not the offence be atoned for in a more rational manner, by compelling the delinquent to labour, first for the benefit of the party aggrieved, till recompence is made, and then for the State?[13]
According to the present system the offender loses his life, and they whom he has injured lose their property; while the State also suffers in being deprived of a member, whose labour, under proper controul, might have been made useful and productive.
Observations have already been made on one consequence of the severity of the punishment for this offence; that persons of tender feelings conscientiously scruple to prosecute delinquents for inconsiderable Thefts. From this circumstance it is believed, that not one depredation in a hundred, of those actually committed, comes to the knowledge of Magistrates.
Mixed or compound Larceny has a greater degree of guilt in it than simple Larceny; and may be committed either by taking from a man, or from his house. If a person is previously put in fear or assaulted, the crime is denominated Robbery.