‘Law Is Too Soft on Burglary’

The article by Sigfredo A. Cabrera (Editorial Pages, May 11), “Law Is Too Soft on Burglary; It Is Not a Property Crime,” is not only inaccurate, it also reflects faulty reasoning.

Cabrera is correct when he states that burglary is not a crime against the person. For his edification, there were three types of offenses at common law that we currently group under the generic heading of “theft.” Larceny was a crime against property. Burglary was a crime against the habitation or home. Robbery was a crime against the person.

Strictly speaking, burglary is entering a structure with the intention of committing a felony or theft inside. Cabrera argues that since many rapes and robberies occur during the course of a burglary, that the punishment for burglary should be increased. This makes no sense as the punishment for the crimes of rape and robbery are on the books to deal with those offenses.

If we adopt Cabrera’s reasoning, we would enact the death penalty for burglary since many murders are committed by individuals who began by breaking into structures.

Cabrera’s suggestion that burglary be reclassified as a “crime against the person” would accomplish nothing, as the punishment for residential burglary is actually greater than the punishment for a simple robbery. Of course, judges can sentence the criminal to additional terms for the criminal’s prior record, the use of a weapon, etc.

PETER S. DOFT

San Diego