Personality Disorder and Money

¶ … defendant, D, had the requisite intent to burn the building (commit arson) when he started a fire in Smith's wastepaper basket in the classroom; whether D. had the requisite intent to steal Sue's wallet and money when he found it; whether D. had the requisite intent to steal Chester's $10 when it was offered him for the purpose of purchasing dance tickets; whether D. had the requisite intent to steal Chester's additional $20 when it was offered him for pictures.

RULE Arson is defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. Theft is defined as the "physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently" (Bernard, 2006). ANALYSIS FACTS • Jim set fire to the wastepaper basket • Jim picked up Sue's wallet and hid it • Jim called Sue's house many times that night but did not tell Sue's mother about the wallet.

• Jim took Sue's money and threw the wallet in the river • Jim took Chester's money, which was given him to buy dance tickets and tickets to have Chester's and Sue's pictures taken at the dance. Jim spent the money on cigarettes and Playboy magazines The facts of the case do not give any indication of the actual intent of Jim's actions. Jim's intent in starting the wastepaper basket fire was to provide himself an event out of which he could emerge as a hero in Sue's eyes.

He did not think the fire would harm the classroom walls and expected to be able to report the fire before it became a danger to the building. Jim liked Sue and he naively thought this would be a way to get her attention. Jim also found Sue's wallet on the ground and only hid it with the same intention as with the fire -- so as to be able to be the one to give it her and seem like a hero in her eyes.

He even called the house many times in order to reach her. He did not tell her mother of the wallet because of the same naive impulse: he wanted to be the one to tell Sue. Jim shows a lack of impulse control and that is evident in what he did next with the wallet: he took the money and threw it in the river thinking the case was hopeless. At this point, he became a thief.

He sought attention more than he did the return of one's property to the rightful owner; when he failed to receive the former he threw away the latter and kept for himself what he knew did not rightfully belong to him. Jim took Chester's initial $10 with every intention of purchasing the dance tickets, as Jim wanted to do Chester the favor. However, Jim's lack of impulse control reared again and when he became angry, he kept the $10 for himself.

He took Chester's next $20 under false pretences -- he had every intention to keep the money for himself this time: he was a thief from the beginning in this case -- not as a result of impulses or mood swings. CONCLUSION JUDGMENT It is the judgment of the court that the defendant is guilty of the theft of $30 from Chester and of Sue's wallet.

The defendant is not guilty of arson with intent to destroy property, but he is guilty of reckless endangerment as he did intend to start a fire with the presumption of calling for help before the fire escalated. On appeal, the disposition is affirmed and judgment is for the plaintiff. DISSENT Judge X wrote the lone dissenting opinion expressing awareness of the defendant's mental state, which appears to lack the necessary actus reus for a guilty verdict to be passed.

The defendant shows signs of personality disorder, behavioral mood disorder, and.