And as I write in my column today, the theft of a few Caramello Koalas from a fundraising box is not going to threaten the community. And since it is me who'll cover the loss in this instance, no harm has been done. So does it matter? Does petty theft matter?

Taking that line a little further seems to throw grand theft into a new light.

One of the community's great problems is the imbalance of wealth, and so grand theft that goes towards correcting that imbalance might not be such a bad thing.

Indeed, grand theft might be a good deal more positive than petty theft that changes nothing!

That's a progression from the argument that petty theft doesn't really matter.

And if the difference between petty theft and grand theft is just one of degree, at the petty end of the scale it might not even register as theft. Our language seems to think that's the case. That's why we use the words pinch and nick and snaffle and shoplift instead of steal.

As you know, the Iemma Government wants police to fine rather than charge people for stealing goods up to a value of $300, which is a quasi decriminalisation of petty theft.

Maybe we should scrub the quasi and decriminalise petty theft altogether.

The law in this case achieves no good purpose and certainly is not effective in discouraging petty theft. And as is the case with offensive-language laws, petty theft laws may be used as a police weapon against minorities. And in a free country, should we even try to legislate morality?

Should pinching something be recognised formally as a bit of mischief, no real harm done?