Richard wrote in Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:21 am:Thorsten wrote in Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:00 am:Interesting... so what is taking a bicycle that doesn't belong to you, ride home and just drop it then? It's still gone from the POV of the owner, though you have no intention to keep it, just to use it once. I think that's still theft in Germany, though I'm not 100% certain. Also, 'permanently' seems a fishy criterion - we can't conceptually deprive people forever of something because they eventually die, and so do we - so this must map into some time duration in practice.
In the example, it doesn't matter whether you have the bicycle or not, if you have taken it and the owner no longer has it then you have deprived the owner of it. It is the intent, not the result, that is the test. So by taking the bicycle and leaving it near your house with no intent to return it then that is probably good enough to prove "permanently deprive". Whereas if you take the bicycle, ride it home and fedex it back to the original owner that is a valid defence for a theft charge. At this point the owner could well sue you for damages incurred as a result of your actions, so if the owner had to take a taxi to work you'd have to pay for that as well.
You are using a circular argument. Thorstens point was, regardless of the crime committed, you can not undo a criminal offense once committed. The only way to undo the criminal offense is to pay the piper, make ammends. The court of law does not care what it charges you with, but they will convict you if you committed an offense and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'd also ask, what was the intent of taking the bike in the first place? So you can pay to fedex it back? Why not pay for a new bike that you can keep instead? As a jury member, I'd laugh you out of the court room on that premise alone