I don't know if I would trust a crook to serve me. I wonder how it was done in ancient Israel. Probably there was a severe punishment for a slave that went rogue, but still that is no guarantee the slave in your house wouldn't smother you while you sleep and run away with your gold and silver.
Then he would be liable for the death penalty. I think when the Jews live by the Torah there will be less theft. Theft is caused by the belief that we should have more than what we earn, and have little faith that our needs will not be fulfilled through the work of our hands. Personally I have a lot of faith in Hashem due to the steady nature of my employment. My livelyhood, I believe, is given to me by Hashem and not due to the work I do for the company I work at. A theif believes that through taking what is someone elses that he is able to attain something good. But a thief does not deserve what he steals and the punishment is to pay back twice the value of what is stolen.
There are also Halachas which allow a Jew to kill a theif who comes to rob a house at night. A thief killed while trying to rob is not considered murder, the blood is on the thieves hands...
http://vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha71/18-71mishpatim.htm Every system of law must grapple with the interaction and conflict between differing values. Among these tensions is the relationship between property rights and the sanctity of life. What measures can one take to protect property? Is a person permitted to kill in order to protect his belongings or must he stand helpless as others walk away with the fruits of his labor? In parashat Mishpatim, the Torah addresses this important question:
"If a thief be found breaking in, and he is beaten to death, he has no blood. If the sun has risen on him he has blood..."(22:1-2). These verses are composed of two instances with opposite conclusions. In the first verse the Torah determines "he has no blood" while the second verse states, "he has blood." How do we interpret these verses? What is implied by the word blood, and furthermore, which person (the thief or the property owner) is the verse referring to when it says "he has no blood?"
The majority of the commentators, the Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, France, 1080-1160), Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra, Spain, 1092-1167) and Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Spain, 1194-1274), interpret these statements as referring to the HOUSEOWNER who kills the thief breaking into his house. In the first case, the owner of the house has no blood on his hands for having killed the thief; he is not guilty of spilling blood. In the second case the houseowner has blood on his hands, therefore he is guilty of having spilled the blood of the thief.
.
.
.
What are the circumstances which determine whether or not the houseowner is permitted to kill the thief? Scripture states that if the thief is killed while breaking in then there is no bloodguilt. If the sun has risen on the thief and he is then smitten there is bloodguilt. What is the connection between the two situations? What does the Torah mean by "breaking in" and by the sun rising on the thief? Why should these be the criteria in determining the culpability of the house owner?
Rashi, citing our sages (see Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 72a), explains the criteria for determining whether the house owner is guilty of murdering the thief:
"Here the Torah teaches you that if one comes to kill you, arise and kill him first. This thief came to kill you for he knew that no one restrains himself and watches others stealing his money and remains silent. Therefore with this intention did he come, that if the owner of the money would stand up against him, he would kill him."
In what case is it forbidden to kill the thief?
"If the sun has risen on him" - This is only metaphorically speaking, if it is clear to you that the thief is at peace with you just like the sun which is 'at peace' in the world, if it is plain to you that he does not come to kill even if the owner of the money will rise up against him; as in the case of a father that breaks in to steal the money of his son, it is known that the father has mercy upon his son and he does not come to take his life."
Rashi explains that the Torah understands it to be human nature to fend off a thief stealing one's property. The Torah does not expect a man to stand idly and watch a thief steal his property. It is assumed that, through his natural instinct, the owner will confront the thief. Since the thief knows that the owner will confront him he comes willing to kill the owner. Therefore the thief is considered as one who comes to kill and as such it is permissible to kill him. The critical point is that the permission to kill the thief is not a consequence of his desire to steal but rather the Torah's evaluation that the thief has a willingness to kill. However, if circumstances are such that it is clear that the thief has no intention of harming the owner, it is absolutely forbidden to kill him. Theft of property does not justify killing. There are limits which the Torah imposes on the owner with regard to the means he can use in protecting his private property and belongings. Rashi interprets the clause: "If the sun has risen on him" in a metaphoric sense. The decisive factor in prohibiting the killing of the thief is not the time of the theft, (the time of the theft has no bearing on the law), but rather the intention of the thief. If it is certain that the thief will not harm the owner, as in the case of a father stealing from his son, then it is prohibited to harm the thief. The time of the theft has no bearing on the law. There is no difference between day and night. What matters is the evaluation of the intentions of the thief.
.
.
.
See also :
http://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-002.htm