>I feel like it's a mistake for the legal code to distinguish between what are fully interchangeable terms in the language the code is supposedly written in.

They're not at all fully interchangeable, just many Americans have a poor grasp of the English language.

▲

nkrisc 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

English is not some objective, natural thing which exists outside of its usage by people. English is only how it's used by people.

I would wager that for the majority English speakers, the words "theft", "robbery", and (to a lesser degree) "burglary" or more or less fully interchangeable.

They may not be interchangeable in law, but the usage of English in law is famously not always in line with common usage, which is why we have "legalese" which many completely fluent and native English speakers may have trouble understanding without specialized legal training.

	▲	mafuy 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		ESL here. To me, there is a very clear distinction between these terms, which also applies in my native language: A thiefs tries to steal without you noticing, a burglar is a thief that additionally enters a building, and a robber in contrast steals while intentionally confronting you. The intention and the level of danger each of these pose is quite different.

▲

thaumasiotes a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The language is solely defined by what people think it means. The terms are in fact fully interchangeable.

If you'd like it packaged in something that looks authoritative, you might consider the following definitions from Merriam-Webster:

burgle: to commit robbery

rob: to take away as loot : steal

thieve: steal, rob

▲

mafuy 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To my own surprise, I think that the nouns are less interchangable than the verbs. The verbs are way more commonly interchanged, even in my native language. Curious!

▲

spolitry 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So? Are you proposing that huge classes of law simply must not exist just because laypeople are casual with language?

▲

thaumasiotes 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Laypeople aren't casual with language. You're not going to hear anyone referring to a theft as a bubble bath. They know what the words mean.

But the law is using the language incorrectly in ways that are guaranteed to cause confusion. This is a problem. The law should be using the language correctly, which it isn't doing now.

▲

sokoloff 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The law is defining the language within the law, including the required elements that must be proven in order for the crime to result in a conviction.

The law does not require nor permit you to bring your own dictionary for crimes; they give you the definition for free and require to use theirs. As an example, burglary is defined in

Texas Penal Code § 30.02 - Burglary: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

They further go on to define "building" and "habitation" in Penal Code § 30.01.

If you find a dictionary definition that conflicts with the Texas Penal Code's definition of burglary or of a building, guess which one prevails in a criminal proceeding in Texas?

	▲	thaumasiotes 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm aware of the structure. My comments have said that it is a mistake -- not a logical impossibility, but a bad idea -- to use existing, interchangeable terms for crimes that are legally distinct. This mistake is usually avoided, but in the case of robbery, burglary, and theft, it hasn't been. For example, imagine that someone gets really drunk, stumbles into your home, collapses on your couch, and soaks it in urine. Hours later, you come home and find him sleeping it off. Under Texas law, whether this is "burglary" depends on the value of your couch. Suppose you've got a very fancy couch. It was "burglary". Any local newspaper is free to refer to that guy as having been convicted of burglary (assuming he gets prosecuted). But this is clearly a miscarriage of justice; no one in the world would consider that "burglary", and coverage using that term should be defamatory. In general, if you seek to define new terms, they should actually be new terms. Redefining terms people already know has downsides, but not upsides.