Apprehended shoplifting is treated as the completed crime of larceny
even though the merchandise is generally immediately recovered and
payment is offered but refused for the recovered merchandise on the
store premises even before the police arrive in the security office to
write the ticket to the suspect for the crime of "stealing."
City- licensed secret security personnel who are privately paid by
the private retailers in the stores and not by the cities apparently
have no obligation, as does a sworn police officer, to warn,
prevent and stop attempts to steal, mistake, and inadvertence that
they are witnessing with the use of secret surveillance before
suspects depart final checkout points.
It would appear that in a free and democratic state and under
capitalism that the first concern of the private and corporate
retail stores should be to get their merchandise paid for. This used
to be the diligence that the courts assumed the retailers owed the
public because of the manner in which they display and sell their
private merchandise to private citizens for private profits on private
property.
But, is it now necessary because of the subsidy of civil recovery
demands for the retail industry that privately paid city- secret-
security personnel permit suspects to pass final checkout points
without a warning so that the cities, and not the retail
corporations, can assume the responsibility for the arrests of the
suspects for "stealing" and so that cost effective demand letters can
then be sent by the retailers threatning prosecution of shoplifting
under the civil laws of the state unless money damages are remitted
within a certain time period.
In Washington and Florida, minimum punitive damages, dishonestly
called restitution or civil recovery, means that arrests and tickets
for shoplifting small items worth less than $l.00 wholesale can bring
$200, plus attorney fees, to a corporate retailer and the retailer
isn't even responsible for the arrest.
It is just incidental, of course, that there is more money for the
retailer in an arrest and civil demand letter for punitive damages
than there is in the sale of the merchandise in 99% of all
shoplifting detentions.
Is shoplifting really the crime of "larceny" or was the criminal and
the civil law manipulated to render apprehended shoplifting a
completed larceny so that the government could give the retail
corporations the subsidy of civil demand letters that are sent to
suspects ticketed by the cities for the crime of "stealing".
Is the use of our sworn police to respond to calls from the Security
Offices of the Retail Corporations really in the interests of the
people? How can the practice of civil demand letters be defended in a
free and democratic state? How can the practice of putting secret
city police in the retail stores to entrap for completed larcenies be
defended?
Please don't respond with the "statistics" on shoplifting (who
produces these statistics) because apprehended shoplifters have
generally caused no actual loss to the owner of the merchandise and
the retailer could have made a sale if the detained and suspected
shoplifter were warned and permitted to pay for the merchandise.
The arrests and the city tickets for "stealing" therefore are made by
the cities for the purpose of deterrence of any second attempt to
steal from the retailer by the apprehended shoplifter. And this
deterrence, by the cities, on behalf of the retail stores and their
profits, is justified by the cities as being for the public good
because it might reduce the costs of private goods sold to the public
because the retail stores will share their profits with the people.
(The public has been led to believe that the American Public is so
dishonest that the stores can't operate at a profit unless they have
this subsidy of our police and civil recovery from government).
And why doesn't government require the retailers to warn about the
punitive fines for "shoplifting", intentional or unintentional, and
why doesn't government itself post notice that shoplifting is the
crime of "larceny" and is punished under local and state laws. Why
doesn't government require the retail corporations to post notice of
the secret surveillance, the secret police and the secret detection
devices in the merchandise offered for sale?
Suchnotice would certainly deter many, maybe most first attempts to steal,
mistakes and inadvertence.
It appears that the retailers, the government, and the local bar
don't want to deter any FIRST attempts to steal through warnings and
miss out on the city revenue in the terms of fines, bail, etc. for the
cities and the
fines for the retailers and the fees for the collection attorneys,
and the defense fees for the attorneys of the local bar associations.
Why is the attempt to steal from a retail corporation treated
diferently than an attempt to steal from my garage sale or an attempt
to steal from a private owner of other than a retail business? Isn't
this just an unconstitutional subsidy for the corporate retailers?
If the criminal and unique civil statutes for retail theft are truly
cumulative, as indicated by a commenter, isn't the civil statute
that permits the 37c civil demand letter to be sent to a shoplifting suspect
unconstitutional when there has been an arrest and a ticket for a
criminal offense before the civil demand is made regardless of the
outcome or final disposition of the criminal charge? |
Clarification of Question by
cjkc-ga
on
13 Aug 2005 19:50 PDT
If a retailer can make more money arresting a customer for shoplifting
than in selling the product to the customer, why would the retailer
be diligent in preventing an attempt to steal this product? Why
would retailers look for methods and technology to prevent attempts
to steal, mistake, and inadvertence? The retailers will soon have the
technology in RFID to eliminate the crime of shoplifting in retail
stores, but will they want to give up their subsidy of civil demand
letters for money damages in return for fair payment for their
merchandise?
Do you believe that retailers have no obligation to be diligent and
prevent, hinder, and discourage attempts to steal their merchandise
that are being witnessed by their paid agents. The retailers are
not children either and they know that if you put mountains of
unwatchned and unguarded merchandise out on display with only a few
sales clerks here and there, there are going to be attempts to steal
because it looks so easy and is so tempting. As we Christians learned
from the first garden, humans do not always resist the temptation to
do the wrong thing if they think they are not under surveillance and
will not be caught and punished for their wrongdoing. Even an
ex-President of ours says that people do bad things when they think
that no one is looking.
The retailers are in the business of selling merchandise in a free
country. Why should they be entitled to unjust enrichment (punitive
damages) because their own paid secret police agents fail to prevent
attempts to steal their merchandise and instead allow shoppers to
commit covert acts that suggest attempts to steal and permit them to
exit the stores without paying so that they can be arrested for
completed larcenies? Retail security personnel (secret police)
have an incentive to arrest outside of final checkouts to provide
private profits for their private retail employer who is not
responsible for the arrest or any subsequent prosecution in the lower
courts, and who has generally not suffered any actual loss whatsoever
from the arrested and ticketed defendant.
It is true of course that the intimidation of the arrests for a crime
of moral turpitude, the shame, and the great expense incurred from
the arrests provide a deterrent to any second attempt to steal for
amateurs but in all honesty the stores do not provide notice of the
state -authorized punitive civil damages that range into hundreds of
dollars or of the fact that the city and not the store will prosecute
you for a completed larceny if you pass final checkouts without paying
for the merchandise. Such notice would, of course, be a deterrent to
many FIRST attempts to steal and the retail corporations and the
government owe the public this notice if these practices and these
new civil recovery laws are constitutional. .
But, of course, if such notice were prominently posted, more citizens
might wonder about the justice and the constitutionality of the 37
cent civil demand letters for money damages that are sent out to
arrested and ticketed shoplifters out of view of the courts? And, of
course there wouldn't be as many civil demand letters for punitive
damages from the retailers and the collection agencies because FIRST
attempts would be deterred to a great extent.
Face it! civil recovery and civil demand letters are a subsidy given
to the retail corporations by government and these cost effective
letter demands for money damazges that threaten civil prosecution for
shoplifting would not be possible and/or feasible unless shoplifting
suspects are arrested and ticketed by the cities for the crime of
"stealing".
I mind and resent that the government puts secret police in private
retail stores and sllows the stores to secretly surveil customers for
the purpose of instituting arrests for attempted thefts that are
treated as completed larcenies by government so that the concept of
civil demand and civil recovery laws and punitive civil damages can
be justified for the corporate retailers.
I love this country and if the cities think that it is good for the
country to premeditate the arrest and ticketing of millions of
"first-time" arrested shoplifters for the crime of "stealing", i.e.
larceny for apprehended shoplifting to provide deterrence to second
attempts to shoplift and a subsidy for the corporate retailers, I
want them to justify this use of our police and our courts to provide
this "deterrence" and this subsidy for the corporate retailers. I
want the cities and the retailers to justify the lack of notice that
would deter many first attempts to steal, mistake, and inadvertence in
the retail stores.
If the city police did not respond to calls from the private retail
corporate security offices, the private retail corporations would
have to (1) have their privately-licensed police security file a
criminal complaint directly to the court and/or (2) have to join
their privately-licensed security personnel and together file a civil
complaint for shoplifting in the civil courts or (3) do both.
The option of the 37c "out of court" demand letter made possible by
the fulcrum of the ticketed criminal charge of "stealing" by the city
would then not be immediately available to the corporate retailers and
they would then bear some of the responsibility and expense for
actually instituting both criminal and civil suits for shoplifting.
The lower courts would not have to be closed to any defense to a
ticket for "stealing" and the due process rights of the defendants
would be respected. The privately licensed police security or LP
personnel might have to actually indicate to the stopped and detained
shoplifter that he or she is under arrest for "stealing" and has
certain rights when they first detain the suspect for suspicion of
shoplifti8ng outside of final checkouts or outside of the stores.
Shoplifters are not warned that anything they say may be used against
them when they are stopped by city-licensed secret retail security
personnel.
Arrests for profits are not a legitimate pursuit of government and
government arrests to produce deterrence of shoplifting that provide
unjust profits for private corporations from individual defendants
should not be a legitimate pursuit of government ----- in my opinion.
Surely, the powers that be could have found a better and more just
and democratic solution to the problem of shoplifting in our society.
.
|
