Article by Stuart P. Green
As recent incidents in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other disasters have illustrated, the moral content of the crime of looting spans a wide continuum. At one end are predatory and exploitative acts that seem deserving of even greater punishment than ordinary acts of burglary and larceny. At the other end are cases of necessity, involving otherwise law-abiding citizens, who, as a result of forces beyond their control, find themselves hungry and exposed to the elements. In between these two poles lies a wide range of conduct that often involves impoverished and alienated citizens living on the edges of society, encouraged to engage in lawlessness by powerful group dynamics and the apparent suspension of civil order. This Article begins by examining the various meanings—both literal and metaphorical—of looting. It then offers an approach for distinguishing between good, bad, and in-between acts of looting. The Article concludes by considering some of the practical implications of the foregoing analysis, including the suggestion by various commentators that the proper response to looters is to shoot them on sight. It argues that such a policy would be profoundly misguided, both because criminal law should not tolerate the disproportionate use of deadly force in response to what is, essentially, a property crime and because of the obvious difficulties of distinguishing between bad and good looting, particularly under the kinds of emergency conditions in which such acts are committed.
About the Author
Stuart P. Green. L.B. Porterie Professor of Law, Louisiana State University.
Citation
81 Tul. L. Rev. 1129 (2007)