• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Do We Need a New Law to Make Stealing Illegal?

    Everyone agrees that stealing should be a crime. Theft has been an offense in every society that has recognized property rights. Theft was a crime under the English common law; every state outlaws theft today; and theft of federal property (or property in interstate commerce) is a crime under federal law.

    A new bill, the Metal Theft Prevention Act (S. 3631), would make stealing metal from critical infrastructures a federal offense punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. Stealing is already a crime, so it is reasonable to ask: Is this bill necessary? Why does theft of metal from critical infrastructures demand special treatment?

    Theft of metals used in the nation’s critical infrastructure has been in the news lately. Does that matter? Maybe. Suppose there is a particular metal—let’s call it Bellsium, after Alexander Graham Bell—that is indispensable in communications devices because it is the only substance that can withstand electromagnetic pulses that would otherwise zap all military equipment. Suppose also that there is a limited supply of Bellsium. High demand and low supply would make Bellsium an attractive target for theft. To ensure an adequate Bellsium supply for the military, Congress may want to let federal law enforcement investigate and prosecute cases of its theft. However, this bill cannot accomplish that goal.

    Consider the bill’s text. It does not simply forbid theft of Bellsium that has traveled in interstate commerce. That would address the problem in a straightforward manner. But this bill doesn’t do that.

    Instead, it uses overbroad terms to outlaw conduct. It would forbid theft of a long list of “specified metal[s],” which includes any metal that has a public utility logo or comes from such critical infrastructures as a “street sign,” a “grave marker or cemetery urn,” or “a container used to transport or store beer with a capacity of 7.75 gallons or more.” (Who knew that the nectar of the gods was critical to national security?)

    But there is more. The government must prove that a theft “harms” the nation’s “critical infrastructure,” which is defined as “systems and assets” that are “so vital to the United States” that their incapacity “would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”

    Those requirements raise endless questions: How much theft is necessary for “a debilitating impact”? The first theft wouldn’t be sufficient, particularly if the amount was small, but the 1,000th theft might be. When does the tipping point occur? Does it change each year?

    Also, how would the government prove the necessary “impact” on security; national, economic, or otherwise?

    An affidavit? Nope—the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause forbids trial by affidavit.

    An expert opinion? Whose? Do we want the Secretary of Homeland Security to have to testify? Do we want to have a battle of experts on the issue or leave the issue to the jury? We don’t ask juries to gauge the effect of a theft on the nation. We ask them only if one has occurred. There is no reason to change that approach now.

    This is particularly true when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. The Department of Homeland Security has a National Infrastructure Protection Plan that provides for a collaborative effort between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement to protect the nation’s critical infrastructures. This allows federal, state, and local governments to investigate these thefts jointly.

    The government needs to use the resources it already has. That approach might address the problem. This bill won’t.

    Bills such as the Metal Theft Prevention Act make it appear as though Congress is accomplishing something substantive even though it really isn’t. This just adds to the maze of criminal laws. Even if the federal government has a particular interest in the theft of metal that is necessary for communications, this bill would only create more problems than it would solve.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Do We Need a New Law to Make Stealing Illegal?

    1. Bobbie says:

      We need new people in government who's minds comprehend: facts, common sense, civil violations, judicial justice with respect for America's indiscriminate principles and the indiscriminate law of her land. Jury decides the punishment. Writing new laws isn't going to stop the crime the punishment stops and or deters crime of all sorts.

    2. Rules says:

      Outstanding analysis.

      The "Metal Theft Prevention Act (S. 3631)" is the type of bad law which contributes to ever escalating overcriminalization and 95% federal plea bargain rates, the latter reflecting gross injustice and the crushing of civil liberties.

    3. When gas prices began rising sharply 10 to 15 years ago. ,many states passed laws that would suspend the driver's license's (in addition to other penalties) of individuals found guilty of stealing gasoline……"gas and dash." Is stealing gas a worse crime than stealing a Social Security check from your Grandmother?

      Many states and politicians are jumping on the band wagon to ban texting while driving. But Common Law has always recognized that people are responsible for their actions while driving, operating a business, riding a bike, renting out a home, etc.

      Laws today are not based on legal principles but whatever is politically most popular and gets the most votes. Integrity, the guts of our legal system, is being destroyed.

    4. retrogrouch says:

      Your article is misleading and a gross distortion of the law. This is a real issue and impacts interstate commerce. You do not need to look very far to find 100s of stories about people stealing metal for scrap (especially copper) because of its high salvage value price. Thieves are blundering power lines, man hole covers, utility pipes, etc. They are disrupting electricity lines, water lines, constructions projects, and truly putting people's lives at risk. http://iowacoldcases.org/the-copper-theft-epidemi… ; http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/19/… Maybe after your car hits a manhole without a cover you'll reconsider. If you live.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.