Adding to Dan's post I'd like to get Immanuel Kant's thoughts into it. He is of the opinion that it is not the physical act which defines something, but the intent with which the act was made. In that sense it is not important that the boy dropped the stolen item at the door; he was of the intent to steal and therefore a thief.
The same applies to the denial of action X. The memory of something is not important; it is the intent with which the action was made. Therefore Y is not true, but X is. Y is merely the testament of the lies the actor tells himself.
Hope this helps.
I disagree. The tactile nature and pleasure of an object and the utter perversion of natural occurance that property rights are would lead me to believe that one could take an object without ever considering that it should 'belong' to oneself (be stolen by one).
Secondly Kant infers that the 'truth' resides inside the conscious mind - that is clearly wrong - founded on the basis that the 'truth' is a totally inept determination of reality, which is quite obviously NEVER what it appears to be.