Ask Noah Q&A Forum › Living the Seven Commandments › Ask The Academy Rabbis › Laws and Courts (T)
Hi AskNoah,
Theft is the physical taking of someone else's property without their consent. Thinking in terms of the Seven Commandments, including a positive obligations to have officers to support righteous courts of justice, when is it justified for a "justice officer" (as opposed to today's police force which do more to fail justice) to take or seize someone else's belongings? You know that today's police grab almost anything of value: money, cars, guns; they go into people's houses and properties and for various reasons take things, sometimes for profit, sometimes because they feel they have the power too (like taking the vehicle of individuals because they don't have the government piece of paper), but other times for investigation. Based on Seven Commandment justice, what constitutes as theft and what is not? When are justice officers justified in seizing someone's property?
In Torah Law, a "justice officer" functions only as an agent of the court, and not as an independent entity. This means that justice officers are to carry out court-appointed tasks such as:
- deliver summons for court appearances
- bring witnessed, accused or suspected offenders to court for trial
- administer the legally prescribed punishment to a convicted offender
- periodically monitor the compliance of the citizenry with the established laws of commerce (for example, to conduct checks of vendors' measuring scales and measuring vessels, to make sure the sales by weight and volume are being conducted honestly)
- any seizure of personal property by a justice office may rightfully be done only by order of the court, for the purpose of a good and necessary reason in accordance with established righteous laws which are applied fairly (without favoritism or prejudice).
Thank you, Reb, for your answer.
"- any seizure of personal property by a justice office may rightfully be done only by order of the court, for the purpose of a good and necessary reason in accordance with established righteous laws which are applied fairly (without favoritism or prejudice)."
That was very well said. Very well said. If this principle is breached, is that a fault in terms of theft, or in terms of injustice, or both?
Also, the modern police of today, are they a function/extension of courts (equivalent to the justice officer I was speaking of) or an extension of the ruling power? Since you accept the term "the law of the king/kingdom is law", then, if the police are an extension of the ruling party, does that entitle them to take away an individual's personal property under the edicts and laws of the ruling power? Does that give them more powers to take away a person's property?
(03-10-2014, 09:36 PM)amenyahu Wrote: You said:
If an officer seizes for himself something from a person's property, just because he personally covets that particular thing, it is theft.
(03-10-2014, 09:36 PM)amenyahu Wrote: Also, the modern police of today, are they a function/extension of courts (equivalent to the justice officer I was speaking of) or an extension of the ruling power?
Some countries have both types of officers. For example, if the country has a system of government with separation of powers, there may be regulatory agencies, under the authority of the executive branch, that have their own officers.
(03-10-2014, 09:36 PM)amenyahu Wrote: Since you accept the term "the law of the king/kingdom is law", then, if the police are an extension of the ruling party, does that entitle them to take away an individual's personal property under the edicts and laws of the ruling power? Does that give them more powers to take away a person's property?
The answer to both questions is: not arbitrarily. But once can imagine a scenario in which the government makes it illegal for all citizens to own a certain type of item - say, for example, handguns. Then police might be dispatched to collect all handguns from all the citizens and turn these collected items over to a government agency, and then any citizen who retains one in defiance of this law might be subjected to some type of specified punishment. The validity of this government action would depend in large part on whether or not it is in conflict with some other existing law - for example, a previously established guarantee in the country's constitution of a citizen's rights.
"The answer to both questions is: not arbitrarily. But once can imagine a scenario in which the government makes it illegal for all citizens to own a certain type of item - say, for example, handguns. Then police might be dispatched to collect all handguns from all the citizens and turn these collected items over to a government agency, and then any citizen who retains one in defiance of this law might be subjected to some type of specified punishment. The validity of this government action would depend in large part on whether or not it is in conflict with some other existing law - for example, a previously established guarantee in the country's constitution of a citizen's rights."
See, this analogy seems to be a bad one. I say this because the guns are the property of the people who own them. The government doesn't own these guns. Any law that would legalize their confiscation disregarding the level of responsibility of the owner is an unrighteous law and tantamount to theft. So a citizen or a bunch of citizens would be just in protecting their property from a government that just legalized theft in the confiscation of someone else's property.
The only way you could argue for this analogy would be to say that the government owns everything or at least all the guns or whatever they legalize the taking of. And they don't.
First of all, we are not at all saying that such onerous confiscation would be a rightful thing to do. Rather, this is offered as a good analogy for illustrating a scenario in which the officers themselves would not be personally guilty of theft, because they were acting on the orders of the (oppressive) government and they were not taking the property for themselves.
On the other hand, if a government dispatches officers to kill innocent people, G-d forbid, the officers themselves who commit the act are guilty of murder.
As an addendum, it is clear that every society will place limits on what a person is legally permitted to own in his possession, for the sake of the safety of the general population. For example, a government might make it illegal for private persons to own dangerous animals like lions or tigers, or to harbor weapons of mass destruction, or powerful narcotic drugs. And the government might empower officers to confiscate such items from a person's private home. In large part the propriety of such laws depends on the consensus of the general population, along with adherence to the principles of due process. And most societies delegate powers to their government to watch over their general welfare, to protect them from evil or negligent people in their midst, which will include sensible limits on what a person is allowed to own in his personal possession. A government which goes beyond this and overreaches may very well be dictatorial.
BrianDan
If you live in the United States, just read the fourth amendment to the Constitution. No officer has permission go into your home without probable cause signed by a court. Also, no officers have permission to confiscate property without a probable cause signed by a court judge specifying what property they are to seize. But as with any other rights, you should be able and ready to defend them. (For example, officers coming into your property can be video recorded.)