Should the definition/threshold of Grand Theft be raised to $3,000?

Should the definition/threshold of Grand Theft be raised to $3,000?

The only “Grand Theft” ever allowed should be this one:

A 2022-01-01 14-52-37


1 Like

And, you are the one who complains about others going off topic. That is ripe.



1 Like

:grimacing: :sweat_smile:
I’ve been always having problem to understand some threads and this Forum… But I’m trying my best.

Anyway… In this case theft is the theft. And for me “Grand Theft” is a stupid Law backdoor that should never been used these days.

1 Like

Grand theft is not even a grand. It ranges from 500.00 to 750.00 depending upon which state you are in.


“Grand” theft, as differentiation from “petty” theft, is a desirable legal concept in line with the idea of the punishment fitting the crime. It is not a legal “backdoor” used for some nefarious purpose so much as it is a recognition of the varying degrees of severity of a particular crime and its effects on the victim. It’s the same concept as the difference between “murder” and “manslaughter”, or “assault” and aggravated assault", or “Robbery” and “armed robbery”, etc.

The idea that it may be appropriate to revise the dollar amount threshold used to distinguish between the levels of theft has some merit and ought to be at least explored.


Please explain…backdoor to what? Putting inner city punks in prison?

What I meant is that theft is a crime whatever value has been taken. Perhaps that’s my “perfect world” thinking, but I hate situations when somebody takes others belongings and may get away from consequences.
Grand theft limit of $500 for one victim may be equal to nothing, for another person it might life or death.
In my opinion, thief should be punished accordingly to situation, not to stolen value.

I think there was my misunderstanding. Were you referring to the limit, where Grand Theft started, or ended?


1 Like

So I took it opposite way. :roll_eyes:
I’m still learning and I’m sorry for mistakenly posted thoughts about that limit.
Anyway my point was to give punishment not equal to value but circumstances.

We are getting nowhere.

We definitely go somewhere… I took a lesson… and will read this thread carefully !
It’s quite interesting and I’m hoping more members will share their thoughts.

I think I’m with @Jerzy.

Theft is theft and punishment should be based on circumstances. A $500 item stolen from a millionaire will not be missed, while the same item from most people might have been the result of sacrifices and saving up over a period of time.

If they don’t want to prosecute theft of “petty” stuff, make a 3 strikes rule or something similar. 3 times or more definitely points to a pattern that deserves more severe punishment.

1 Like

Yeah, not so much. Nobody ever got rich or stayed rich by ignoring “small” amounts of money. They pay just as much attention to a dollar as we do, maybe more. Hang out with some rich folks for a while and you’ll learn that right off.

Besides, if “theft is theft” then it shouldn’t matter who was stolen from. It’s the act of stealing that’s wrong, whether it’s one coin out of a pile or the last coin out of your pocket. If a wealthier person is inclined to be generous and forgiving, that’s on them. It’s not our place, or anyone else’s, to make that choice for them. The idea that it’s OK or less criminal to steal from “the rich” is a very Marxist socialist premise. Which, by the way, is what makes socialism more than just a bad idea but truly WRONG: it is based on stealing, on theft from those who have worked in order to give to those who haven’t. It is immoral, even sinful, at its core.

Either we are ALL equal under the law or NOBODY is.