Bank robber....house burgular...is all theft the same?

The 5 elements of theft according to the Theft Act 1968 are:

1. Dishonesty

2. Appropriation (when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over a property)

3. 'Property' (includes all personalty)

4. Belonging to another

5. 'With the intent to permanently deprive the other of it.'



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1968

The one that sticks in my mind is 'belonging to another,' afterall, it's only stealing if your taking something that isn't yours.

But can we judge everyone who has stolen something in their lifetime on the same level? Personally I have never stolen anything in my life and think it should be punished whether it is for a stolen handbag or a pack of sweets. However, to say that theft is theft and thats it doesn't really add up when you think about all the different levels of theft out there.



Compare walking into a department store and stealing an item of clothing with bank robbery, or identity theft; the mentality of the people commiting these crimes could range from an adolescent teenager seeking attention to a calculating, dangerous criminal. There is always the case that stealing from a shop could escalate into more serious offences, but this isn't a fact that can be presumed for every individual who has made a
mistake in a moment of weakness.

Ronnie Biggs (pictured above) has spent the majority of his life on the run in Brazil or in prison for his part in a train robbery, yet he isn't considered to be very dangerous. He deserves to pay for his crimes, but can he be thought of in the same way of as a robber that would harm, or even kill someone in order to steal? The below link gives more information on Ronnie Biggs life after his crime:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3548190.stm

No account of theft is morally or legally justifiable, but I do think there is a divide between types of theft and the types of people guilty of it.