Shucks - again my age is showing, first by thinking there was still a
royalty to put a firewire port on a pc, and now the historical definition of
burglary.
Here's what wikipaedia says about it:
*burglary* *(history)*
<http://www.answers.com/library/Wikipedia-cid-11533>
The original common law <http://www.answers.com/topic/common-law> definition
of *burglary* consisted of six specific elements: "breaking and entering the
dwelling of another during the night with the intention to commit a felony
therein". To a greater or lesser extent, these elements have been replaced
in the various common law countries (see
burglary<http://www.answers.com/topic/burglary-1>
).
Historical definition
- *Breaking*
The first element, "breaking," required at least a minimal application of
force. The opening of an unlocked door was sufficient, but if a person
entered a house through an already open door or window, there was no
"breaking" and therefore no burglary, even if all other elements were
present. However, if a person were to enter the house through an open door,
and were then to open a closed door leading to another room in the house,
that would qualify as "breaking" into that room.
An exception to this rule applies where a person who had permission to enter
the house did so at a time when they were not supposed to, or procured this
permission by fraud <http://www.answers.com/topic/fraud> or by threat. Under
modern statutes, many jurisdictions have abandoned this element, now merely
requiring entry.
- *Entering*
The second element, "entry" required that the person enter the house with
some part of their body, even if only for a moment, *or* that the person
insert a tool into the house for the purpose of committing the requisite
felony <http://www.answers.com/topic/felony>. For example, firing a bullet
through a closed window into someone's house with the intent to injure that
person was sufficient to constitute both a breaking and an entry. Entry
continues to be a requisite element of burglary in all jurisdictions.
- *Dwelling*
The third element required that the crime be committed against a "dwelling"
- a place where another person regularly slept (even if the structure was
also used as a business, or was temporarily abandoned at the time). This
requirement has also been largely abandoned under modern statutes, which now
permit a burglary conviction to be based on the entry into almost any
structure, and sometimes even entry to fenced in yards and to automobiles.
- *Of another*
The fourth element required that the dwelling be that of another person. A
person could not burglarize their own dwelling, although a
landlord<http://www.answers.com/topic/landlord>could be found to have
burglarized the dwelling of his
tenant <http://www.answers.com/topic/leasehold-estate>, even though the
landlord was the owner of the property itself.
- *Nighttime*
The fifth element required that the burglary had to be committed at night,
which was defined under the common law as the time when the person's face
could not readily be distinguished under the natural light. Laws in many
jurisdictions continue to impose much harsher penalties for burglaries
committed or attempted at night, or upon an occupied residence.
- *Intent to commit a felony*
Finally, the sixth element required "intent to commit a felony therein."
This intent had to exist at the time of the breaking and entering, even if
the felony (e.g. murder <http://www.answers.com/topic/murder>,
rape<http://www.answers.com/topic/rape>,
larceny <http://www.answers.com/topic/larceny-1>,
vandalism<http://www.answers.com/topic/vandalism>)
was never carried out. If a person broke into a home and, once inside,
decided to commit a felony, this would not constitute a burglary. The intent
to commit a crime remains an element of all burglary laws, but some
jurisdictions have expanded the list of requisite crimes beyond felonies to
include any theft <http://www.answers.com/topic/theft>, even if it is a
misdemeanor <http://www.answers.com/topic/misdemeanor>.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Not according to my dictionary.
> And it does not necessarily imply forcible entry.
> The law tends to maintain these fine distinctions so that an offender
> can be 'loaded up' with several charges in the hope that at least one
> will succeed. Thus 'breaking and entering' are two separate charges,
> one of criminal damage and one of trespass. Theft, burglary and
> robbery are separate, consequent acts. The important distinction
> between robbery and the others is that it is an assault, a crime
> against the person, not against property.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|