A rather strange set by modern understandings - it would consider
someone who broke in with the intent of murder or criminal damage to
be a 'burglar'.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 19/11/2008, at 12:10 AM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|