Perhaps you think I am playing semantics with you but I don't see it as taking when it is freely available in my home. I do not have to do anything to use it, indeed, I have to configure my wireless machines to NOT use his network. That is where I draw the distinction. I see it as the responsibility of the owner to secure the network. The legal system in my state agrees with my interpretation of the law. I understand that other states view the act as a criminal one, even though I personally do not agree.
It isn't that the US is behind, it's that the legal system is flawed and/or bloated with laws that are open to interpretation. If the process were simplified or at the very least laws were written in language that could be understood, half of them could be eliminated altogether. On second thought, maybe we are behind the times.
To answer your question about piggybacking, that is obvious, you go after the one who committed the crime. I'm not sure how you incorrectly inferred that I would prosecute the clueless neighbor.