Why not? Cause you get your wages plus interest garnished, plus a judgment on your credit report. When someone rents something, they're under contract, which should be a civil matter.
A key element of any larceny or theft crime is what an offender intends to do with the property after taking it. Typically, an offender is guilty of a theft crime when he takes the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving him of it. Deciding later to keep the property an offender originally intended to use temporarily and then return becomes a larceny or theft crime at the moment the offender's intent changes. The perfect example of this is a rental car you decide not to return. A lawful rental becomes a larceny or theft crime the moment you fail to return it on time with the intention of keeping it.
Property Value
Keep in mind that the more valuable the property is, the more serious the crime becomes once you decide not to return it. In most jurisdictions, larceny or theft crimes are graded as felonies or misdemeanors based on the value of the property taken. Pennsylvania, for example, grades the theft of a car as a third-degree felony, while the theft of a book is considered only a summary offense. The punishment for offenses, of course, depends on how it is graded and is greater if it is a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor or summary offense.
Borrowing Property
You should also realize that borrowing items from friends or neighbors that you do not return to them could also be considered larceny or theft. So before you consider keeping that lawnmower you borrowed last week to mow your lawn, first consider the consequences. In not returning it, you could be prosecuted for and convicted of larceny and theft and end up with a criminal record that could could keep you from getting a job or going to school. Simply put, any larceny or theft crime can haunt you for the rest of your life.
Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/...llar_crimes/no_return_owner.htm#ixzz44A94g2K0
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook
Obviously it's the law, I was just saying it "shouldn't be". It's just a way for the state to raise money. The owner got screwed, and never saw any money, where as if he got a judgement, he'd been paid. And in cases this small, there's always he said-she said all the time. Like they say returned it, and the other party claims they didn't, now what? Where's the proof of theft, unless you are caught with possession? Obviously high priced items are different, like rental cars, where you can prove there is possession of the property.
So the video store owner (who now has a regular job) has to ask his employer for a day off, has to get all the documentation together, then sit around a courthouse all day....Then once he gets a civil judgement against the Plaintiff, he sits and hopes that this person (who wouldn't return a movie) suddenly decides to pay the owner.
When that doesn't happen, should this guy then try to get another day out of work, or just let it go?...
Should there be a warrant issued at that point?...
That's how it works with Credit Card stiffs. Plus it's easier to get a judgment in Civil Court, cause the burden of proof is lower. About 99% of the criminal cases like this get thrown out because the burden of proof is not met. You have to prove intention, possession, ect... in criminal court. Plus in criminal court most of these guys qualify for a court appointed lawyer, which they don't in civil court (in civil court you're on your own). More tax payer money wasted.
It's a waste of money to investigate and prosecute. So the the taxpayer also loses out in cases like this, and in a big way. Just another example of government not running properly. Obviously these laws were put in place for high priced items where actual fraud and theft was intended and can be proved. Don't think these laws were intended to put cops (who we pay real money) to investigate Johnny High school, who says he returned his textbook, but the high school disputes, so we incarcerate him, (which cost real money) give him a lawyer (which cost real money) then prosecute (which cost real money) then the case gets thrown out, cause the state can't prove that his intentions were to steal, or that he even had possession of the stolen property.
So over all we just spent high 6 figures to get $50 paid back on a borrowed textbook, that couldn't even be proved to be a criminal act. Store owner still doesn't get shit. LOL that's American logic, and why we're fucked like we are in debt.
In Civil court when you get a judgment they will garnish wages, so they take right out of your check or bank account, and the burden of poof is way lower in Civil court so the store owner actually wins the case, and gets his money 90% of the time.
First, I'm not "upset" about anything.
Second, I think that we are a Nation of Laws for a reason.
Everytime somebody has something stolen from them, I don't think that a person should have to go to Court to get Justice. We have enough scumbags stealing from people as it is. I can't imagine if there was no Criminal Prosecution and only Civil Prosecution....Robbery would be ten-fold if not more. Can you imagine how clogged up the Court System would be? Nevermind the intimidation of people looking for Justice...
How would you feel if somebody stole from your house? Do you want to just take them to Court if you have them in video surveillance?
