Theft Related Offences - Theft, Burglary, Robbery & Aggravated Burglary

[Tyla Jai]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: Both

What law do you wish to change/add: I will write the laws properly if this is accepted, but here is a general gist of the differences between these offences. In doing this we would be re-writing the theft law as-well as removing the "breaking and entering" legislation. Below is in order of seriousness.

11.6 Theft
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it, liable to 3 years imprisonment and/or $3,000 fine including asset forfeiture.

11.7 Burglary
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a property or any part of a property with the intention to commit theft, cause unlawful damage or to inflict unlawful serious injury, liable to 6 years imprisonment and/or $6,000 fine, including asset forfeiture.

11.8 Robbery
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, he uses force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force, liable to 7 years imprisonment and/or $7,000 fine, including asset forfeiture.

11.9 Aggravated Burglary
A person is guilty of an aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive, liable to 9 years imprisonment and/or $9,000 fine, including asset forfeiture.

Why should this change/addition be made: The change promotes more suitable sentencing for players robbing others and this falling under a simple theft. There is a clear tier system in my version of the theft related offences with theft being the lowest level and aggravated burglary being the highest. |This system is much easier to understand than the current as it uses common words such as "burglary", "robbery" which people understand.

What is the aim of this change/addition: The aim is to provide more tiers to theft related offences improving sentencing and realism.

Additional Information: Inspired by @Hayden armed robbery suggestion, which this would be my alternative to that.

 

[northnortheast]

11.9 Aggravated Burglary
A person is guilty of an aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive, liable to 9 years imprisonment and/or $9,000 fine, including asset forfeiture.

Name shold be 'Aggravated Robbery' preferably, to cover muggings and likewise, as well as raids. Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon, 8 years, $7000 fine, asset forfeiture.

11.8 Robbery
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, he uses force on any person or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force, liable to 7 years imprisonment and/or $7,000 fine, including asset forfeiture.

Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.1 Physical Assault, 5 years, $5000 fine.

11.7 Burglary
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a property or any part of a property with the intention to commit theft, cause unlawful damage or to inflict unlawful serious injury, liable to 6 years imprisonment and/or $6,000 fine, including asset forfeiture.

Essentially the same as Breaking and Entering, with the modifier of Theft. I think that Breaking and Entering suffices as is, burglary and B&E are nearly interchangeable at this point.

Other than that I think this is a neat idea, either this or Hayden's would be good to see - albeit this is wider in range and more consistent with real U.S. laws.

 

[Tyla Jai]

Name shold be 'Aggravated Robbery' preferably, to cover muggings and likewise, as well as raids. Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon, 8 years, $7000 fine, asset forfeiture.


Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.1 Physical Assault, 5 years, $5000 fine.


Essentially the same as Breaking and Entering, with the modifier of Theft. I think that Breaking and Entering suffices as is, burglary and B&E are nearly interchangeable at this point.

Other than that I think this is a neat idea, either this or Hayden's would be good to see - albeit this is wider in range and more consistent with real U.S. laws.

Name shold be 'Aggravated Robbery' preferably, to cover muggings and likewise, as well as raids. Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon, 8 years, $7000 fine, asset forfeiture.

No, you can't commit an aggravated robbery by burgling a property. A robbery is the equivalent of a street mugging where force/a weapon is involved, otherwise it would be a simple theft. The purpose of this law is to cover raids where guns are involved.

Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.1 Physical Assault, 5 years, $5000 fine.

I think 6 years is more suitable, given robbery is much more serious than assault as it involves both a stealing element and potentially an injury or risk of injury element. But yes either or.

Essentially the same as Breaking and Entering, with the modifier of Theft. I think that Breaking and Entering suffices as is, burglary and B&E are nearly interchangeable at this point.

Breaking and entering does not cover the same points to prove, we should remove that law in favour of this new one. A breaking and entering requires breaking where as a burglary does not, it includes trying door handles to find unlocked addresses, or creeping around on a subs balcony, etc. It is easier to prove a burglary than a breaking and entering. The breaking and entering law is extremely americanised and a pretty shit law to work with and has not got a high enough sentence for what it is. For your information all of the above laws reflect almost perfectly the UK equivalents which work so much better than paralake or US laws.

 

[Tyla Jai]

Name shold be 'Aggravated Robbery' preferably, to cover muggings and likewise, as well as raids. Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon, 8 years, $7000 fine, asset forfeiture.


Think this should be lowered to the same max punishment at most as 9.1 Physical Assault, 5 years, $5000 fine.


Essentially the same as Breaking and Entering, with the modifier of Theft. I think that Breaking and Entering suffices as is, burglary and B&E are nearly interchangeable at this point.

Other than that I think this is a neat idea, either this or Hayden's would be good to see - albeit this is wider in range and more consistent with real U.S. laws.

For further clarity - a robbery is a street mugging, an aggravated burglary is a raid.

 

[northnortheast]

For further clarity - a robbery is a street mugging, an aggravated burglary is a raid.

Yes I understand that, hence an aggravated robbery (theft of property by force of an offensive weapon) would apply to raids and muggings. Though I see the need to differentiate.

 

[northnortheast]

No, you can't commit an aggravated robbery by burgling a property. A robbery is the equivalent of a street mugging where force/a weapon is involved, otherwise it would be a simple theft. The purpose of this law is to cover raids where guns are involved.

I think 6 years is more suitable, given robbery is much more serious than assault as it involves both a stealing element and potentially an injury or risk of injury element. But yes either or.

Breaking and entering does not cover the same points to prove, we should remove that law in favour of this new one. A breaking and entering requires breaking where as a burglary does not, it includes trying door handles to find unlocked addresses, or creeping around on a subs balcony, etc. It is easier to prove a burglary than a breaking and entering. The breaking and entering law is extremely americanised and a pretty shit law to work with and has not got a high enough sentence for what it is. For your information all of the above laws reflect almost perfectly the UK equivalents which work so much better than paralake or US laws.

No, you can't commit an aggravated robbery by burgling a property. A robbery is the equivalent of a street mugging where force/a weapon is involved, otherwise it would be a simple theft. The purpose of this law is to cover raids where guns are involved.

Would an aggravated robbery not be theft of property by force of an offensive weapon, which is what is basically happening in every raid? Aggravated burglary includes the use of force to enter an otherwise closed property to perpetrate the theft, so I suppose if you want to prevent small-time muggers from being charged the same as olsen banden raiders than this makes sense. I agree. Perhaps aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery can co-exist, althoughh I see your point.

I think 6 years is more suitable, given robbery is much more serious than assault as it involves both a stealing element and potentially an injury or risk of injury element. But yes either or.

It's only one year, but if physical assault is preferable then it is suggesting that it would be better to knock someone out and steal their weapon than to threaten then and force them to drop it. Either way, not a big difference so idc.

Breaking and entering does not cover the same points to prove, we should remove that law in favour of this new one. A breaking and entering requires breaking where as a burglary does not, it includes trying door handles to find unlocked addresses, or creeping around on a subs balcony, etc. It is easier to prove a burglary than a breaking and entering. The breaking and entering law is extremely americanised and a pretty shit law to work with and has not got a high enough sentence for what it is. For your information all of the above laws reflect almost perfectly the UK equivalents which work so much better than paralake or US laws.

Hm. Replacing Breaking and Entering with burglary would give it a wider range, so I agree with this point yeah. Burglary would be easier to work with and prove in situations where evidence of forced entry are not present.

 

[northnortheast]

You know this is pretty much just the Theft Act 1968 Sections 7-10 not really US laws

yes

 

[nutrient10]

Would an aggravated robbery not be theft of property by force of an offensive weapon, which is what is basically happening in every raid? Aggravated burglary includes the use of force to enter an otherwise closed property to perpetrate the theft, so I suppose if you want to prevent small-time muggers from being charged the same as olsen banden raiders than this makes sense. I agree. Perhaps aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery can co-exist, althoughh I see your point.


It's only one year, but if physical assault is preferable then it is suggesting that it would be better to knock someone out and steal their weapon than to threaten then and force them to drop it. Either way, not a big difference so idc.


Hm. Replacing Breaking and Entering with burglary would give it a wider range, so I agree with this point yeah. Burglary would be easier to work with and prove in situations where evidence of forced entry are not present.

There’s no need for robbery to have any aggravating factors, you would already be guilty of an offence by using force against someone during a robbery and with rule 2.5 there should be no need for people to take it much further, and then it’s likely just going to be a Section 9 offence.

 

[northnortheast]

There’s no need for robbery to have any aggravating factors, you would already be guilty of an offence by using force against someone during a robbery and with rule 2.5 there should be no need for people to take it much further, and then it’s likely just going to be a Section 9 offence.

Aggravated robbery exists and typically refers to when the force used is aggravated (a firearm, for example, as opposed to fists), or when a party is injured as a result of the robbery. But as said if you read the previous post, I see the point of using provisions from the U.K. legislature to make things easier and it wouldn't affect much.

 

[Tyla Jai]

Aggravated robbery exists and typically refers to when the force used is aggravated (a firearm, for example, as opposed to fists), or when a party is injured as a result of the robbery. But as said if you read the previous post, I see the point of using provisions from the U.K. legislature to make things easier and it wouldn't affect much.

Aggravated robbery exists and typically refers to when the force used is aggravated (a firearm, for example, as opposed to fists), or when a party is injured as a result of the robbery. But as said if you read the previous post, I see the point of using provisions from the U.K. legislature to make things easier and it wouldn't affect much.

As stated above, aggravated robbery doesn't exist because it carries a life sentence and you can't really get worse than a robbery as it's the highest form of 'public theft' that you can commit and pretty much always involves weapons or firearms. A standard robbery is equivalent to an aggravated burglary in the sense of there being violence/weapons present, if that makes sense?

Would an aggravated robbery not be theft of property by force of an offensive weapon, which is what is basically happening in every raid?

You can't rob people in a raid, it will only ever be a burglary or aggravated burglary because that wouldn't correctly fit the definition of a robbery.

It's only one year, but if physical assault is preferable then it is suggesting that it would be better to knock someone out and steal their weapon than to threaten then and force them to drop it. Either way, not a big difference so idc.

What you have just defined is a standard robbery, which is why it is a higher sentence than assault, because it's an assault and a theft all in one. This is why it has to be higher.

 

[northnortheast]

I wish I could rate this both disagree and bad spelling but unfortunately, I cannot. Aggravated robbery doesn't exist in UK law because robbery already carries the life sentence at maximum.

Not going to entertain this any more, but I never said that aggravated robbery is a part of U.K. law nor am I under the impression that it is. Paralake is based off of a U.S. state (see 18 USC Section 2113), but as said - please read the post in full - I see the point and agree with Tyla's use of U.K. law in this context.

 

[Auris]

ive never seen anyone do a sneeky break in tbh

 

[Tyla Jai]

Not going to entertain this any more, but I never said that aggravated robbery is a part of U.K. law nor am I under the impression that it is. Paralake is based off of a U.S. state (see 18 USC Section 2113), but as said - please read the post in full - I see the point and agree with Tyla's use of U.K. law in this context.

The laws are not even remotely related to U.S. state laws, they're actually mostly based from british legislation and can tell you that as a fact having contributed significantly to them and by asking the author. But thanks, your contribution is much appreciated!

 

[Tyla Jai]

ive never seen anyone do a sneeky break in tbh

HAVE YOU SEEN ME, @Hazza AND @TOM HILL?

 

[Auris]

HAVE YOU SEEN ME, @Hazza AND @TOM HILL?

no im legally blind

 

[Auris]

HAVE YOU SEEN ME, @Hazza AND @TOM HILL?

what do you mean old bruv your bare old geezer @Tyla Jai

 

[Tyla Jai]

what do you mean old bruv your bare old geezer @Tyla Jai

how old do you think i am

 

[Auris]

how old do you think i am

arent you fucking the only staff member thats married or was that collier or efan i cant fucking remember

 

[Tyla Jai]

arent you fucking the only staff member thats married or was that collier or efan i cant fucking remember

marriage is a social construct!!!! no im not married

 

[Auris]

marriage is a social construct!!!! no im not married

oh i forgot you play gmod nvm