I'd like anyone who considers more harsh jail punishments to be the solution to consider that the USA has the highest per-capita prison population in the world. Only 1/5 of those prisoners is in there for drug-related crime. Perhaps harsher punishments aren't going to help here.
If only 1/5th of those prisoners are there for drug-crime (and I assume you believe as I do that much drug-related crime isn't worth the arrest?) then isn't that in fact evidence that our population commits substantially more _real_ crime than in other countries?
If so, then yes, let's lock them up. "Everyone steals" is not a good defense to stealing.
We have a high prison population so thus we shouldn’t penalize criminals? How does this even make logical sense? Maybe we have a lot of criminals because our society is decaying. Which it very much is. Drug addiction is a separate issue. Crimes have victims, do they not matter? Rampant theft leads to businesses moving out of the area, which harms the community. There are plenty of reasons to punish this behavior.
I get it. But why after we are asked to decriminalize meth and heroin are we being asked to spend a lot of money on drug rehab and housing for people whose lives have fallen apart because of fentanyl? Or that we should just accept that they need to steal those LEGOs at Target to fund their addiction and there shouldn’t be any consequences?
I agree that harsher punishments would not work, but compassion that simply enables this behavior isn’t the way either.
Honestly, the way the suburbs (like Bellevue WA) handle the problem via simple police intimidation (every incident is met with overwhelming police presence) to push the problems on more open nearby cities (Seattle in this case) seems to be the only that works (locally at least, it doesn’t solve the problem at all regionally or nationally).
I’d also like anyone who promotes harsher punishments to actually go through the system for just a day before they insist on locking others into it.
Getting arrested permanently changed my view on our justice system. It was a nonviolent offense, related to a paperwork issue, but it resulted in a bench warrant being issued for me.
If I hadn’t just received several thousand dollars in my account from an unexpected windfall, I would not have been able to pay the jail fees. Not fines for the ticket - which was completely dropped - the jail fees for simply being arrested.
The total out the door cost to get arrested was north of $2100 for me. You can beat the case, but you can’t beat the ride.
This shoplifting epidemic is happening because no one is going to jail for this. The DA has made clear they won't prosecute these crimes so the shoplifters have no fear of getting caught and know they will be released soon.
How many of those are recent convicts vs people serving long sentences piling up?
I feel like no one advocates for a middle ground. I usually don’t believe in locking people up excessively. I also don’t believe in effectively legalizing crime by never persecuting petty theft.
If it’s your second or third time shoplifting in bulk, I think a 6 month prison sentence is appropriate. There needs to be some penalty to disincentivize such behavior.
I don't want to incarcerate a first-time shoplifter, but a habitual thief deserves to spend some time in jail, and the threat of jail will deter people from being habitual thieves.
1. Americans are just more likely to be criminals.
2. Other nations may be equally or even more ineffective at tackling crime.
The assumption that jail doesn't work rests on the assumption that other nations track crime as effectively and that their people are equally criminal.
Locking people up also increases the tax burden on everyone else, because housing someone in a prison isn't free.
The real solutions will be technical. More precise delivery tracking (so you know when your package will arrive, so it doesn't get stolen off your porch an hour later). Drone delivery. Package lockers. Man traps at the supermarket exits.
For that conclusion, wouldn't you need to show that the USA has a higher rate of shoplifting and also a higher rate of incarcerated shoplifters per capita?
This is probably an opinion that I have that is the furthest away from the overton window, but while I wholeheartedly agree (and think drugs should be legalized FWIW), I draw a very different conclusion. Jails definitely don't work as rehabilitation and only prevent crime via removal from society. Also, they are very expensive. So, for better removal, I think habitual criminals (violent or property) should simply be executed. The only problem with death penalty for those who refuse to respect others' negative rights really is the risk of false convictions, and after 3 separate robberies or 5 thefts it is basically 0.
I'm not a big fan of jailing as concentrating prisoners into a single location with lots of time and little oversight sounds prima facie a really bad idea.
I think corporal punishment should be considered as an alternative. Hard to be a cool gangster when you have a sore ass.
Lately there are a lot of people who want to sell this story of out-of-control shoplifting, but as the article itself notes at the end, it might be bullshit:
> Yes, but: An analysis of crime statistics and other reporting by The Atlantic [1] cast doubt on what it called the "great shoplifting freak-out," citing "fuzzy data" and asserting that what's being lumped together as shoplifting is actually a variety of violent crimes.
If you've seen the problem first hand, you wouldn't dismiss it as BS, but I get how people who live in more comfortable environs would find it hard to believe. If you ever visit the Target in downtown Seattle, you can see people just grabbing things off the shelf, the associates watch, follow, try to dissuade them, but 5/10 they get out the door with what they've stolen. It is very depressing to actually see it happen.
The LEGO shelf in that store was cleared out long ago, much to my son's sadness.
But I wouldn't really call this "shoplifting" like I knew it as a kid (when my friends would do it on a stupid dare, trying not to get caught). These people...they aren't worried about getting caught, they aren't subtle about it, they just know the system isn't going to punish them so why not? Like who the heck would try to shoplift a 70 inch TV and think they could do that without anyone noticing? And the judge let him go even though he had like 5 bench warrants:
Some companies are lying about why they’re closing stores.
For example, Walgreens announced in 2019 that it would shutter 200 stores. Blaming shoplifting sounds like some serious Chamber of Commerce spin to direct attention away from them abandoning locations and the jobs that go with them, and to give ammunition to pro-corporate pro-policing factions.
Isn’t it because a lot of people no longer consider stealing morally wrong? There’s an outside voice saying “you deserve this, they’ve got insurance, it’s ok” and the inner voice no longer reponds with “that’s not ok”. Might that be the consequence of too much focus on all sorts of external moral factors telling us what is and is not offensive, perimissible?
Let’s continue our wage disparity and see how that Plays out. We have rising homeless rates it can only get worst. If I am already homeless I may as well attempt to shoplift as jail is 3 hots and a cot as they say.
Prison in America is unjustly violent. The only thing I agree with progressives is that, if there’s no room to jail someone humanely, they shouldn't be in jail.
This to say, the homeless doesn’t want to go to jail for a warm meal. He knows his local DA isnt punishing crime.
Current events, especially in America, has created a situation where I think theft has become ethical to sustain oneself.
They may let us eat cake, but we may opt to eat the rich instead.
Maybe you don't trust the stories over on /r/antiwork or /r/workreform but I think if even 1% is true, America is rapidly spiralling into a direction where a society can't be sustained.
For a large part of the USA population, young people have no hope of a beter future. They may even only have hope not to die and just to exist.
A home, decent wages, maybe a family one day, are probably for ever out of reach.
Unbelievable for the IT tech bro for sure, with 6-figure salaries abound.
Maybe it will not be so bad after all, but I'm not so sure, to be frank.
There was a lovely article yesterday about the fall of Rome dealing with how one of the reasons Rome fell is because various people acted in their own self interest at the expense of the public good. Many of them doing so because they couldn't believe that something that'd been around so long could fail.
To condone theft because you feel like it is the best option for you is the epitome of that mindset. It will destroy society because we destroy the incentive for anyone to create to produce and then we see real poverty. Everyone bitching on antiwork about their hopeless future are doing so from a place where they have regular stable electricity, running clean water, an internet connection, and I am going to guess ate sometime in the last 12 or at least 24 hours.
Contrast that with my brother in law from Africa when we was growing up the government was subject to constant rebellions, and anything you had could be taken at any time, it made it hard to build and secure goods and services because much of your time was trying to survive, and any appearance of success brought those that would take it from you.
That's where we are headed if we continue to ignore the fact that justice and laws are the price of civilized society regardless of how inhumane it feels.
How do you design a law enforcement system that (1) doesn't grind down poor and minorities the way the current system does, yet (2) still makes punishment for minor crimes like shoplifting sufficiently swift, sure, and severe to be an effective deterrent?
Liberals tend to say "Let's focus on (1) and ignore (2)," while conservatives say "Let's focus on (2) and ignore (1)."
Is it possible to create a system satisfies both concerns? Or is there some fundamental reason that we can never have both? Do we need to pick exactly one of {(1), (2)} and just accept that we'll be stuck with whatever we decide is the lesser of two evils?
Uh who could have this seen comming?!? Thing like this start to happen, if the gap between rich and poor becomes bigger and bigger. The next logic step would be just hijack random people.
The vast majority of these people are not stealing out of desperation. This is just the intersection of shitty culture and insufficient enforcement.
>They come in every day, sometimes twice a day, with laundry bags and just load up on stuff,” the Post quoted a store employee saying
We've all seen the videos. When egregious behavior like this goes unpunished and is publicized, there's no shortage of unscrupulous thieves who will line up for an easy score. There is always a subset of the population which only follows laws out of fear of punishment.
I agree that the complicit DAs and recent lax attitudes towards crime are probably a root cause, but it's almost too easy to blame "woke" everything.
If everyone woke went away tomorrow, our society would still have many of these problems.
Personally? I think it's just the chickens coming home to roost on the degradation of our society since the 1970s and it's acceleration since the 2008 financial collapse, but it could also be a lack of investment (emotional, personal and financial) in local communities.
That's what poor and backwards cultures do and we are far from that point. Would anyone sincerely trust the government with the authority to chop off a hand. From personal experience, it is really easy to frame someone for theft. There must be no mean streets in your past.
Already happening in SF as we speak. And the remaining stores have super jacked up prices to the point that it's cheaper to order delivery from a store in the suburbs, pay a tip for a driver, and pay them to do the shopping for you (Instacart) than it is to buy locally.
It's clear that Prop 47 and the general mentality that property crimes don't matter and prosecuting them is racist has failed.
Not sure I want that. When the state refuses to protect private property, the market solution tends to look more like Vito Corleone. That's especially true when it appears certain organized crime groups are perpetrating coordinated thefts like the one at Nordstrom. The big corporations can't afford to to have mafia payments on the books, but they can afford to pack up and leave or encase everything in cages. The local mom 'n' pop store will be willing to pay a bit for protection.
Absolutely not. There are actually human costs to it. My parents are old (in their 70s), and they are lucky to have a CVS near by where they can walk and get their medicine and basic needs.
Pharmacies and grocery stores being forced to close due to unchecked theft inflict pain and major lowering of quality of life to people around the neighborhood, and especially to people that can't just drive to the next store.
Also "just use online", may not be a solution. Medicine (especially pain pills), are continuous target of thefts.
Once the stores are closed, then the organized criminals move into homes. Next you will have to start installing heavy iron bars in your home.
If you walk in parts of brooklyn, you'd see older homes that had massive bars even in 2nd floor windows, just to keep the people safe.
The market just doesn't solve the collapse of society. Unchecked theft costs to all society.
Yea I mean why have police at all? Just let the market sort out all out. If people keep getting shot, we’ll eventually the neighborhood will empty out and no more shootings!
[+] [-] tomlockwood|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahh|4 years ago|reply
If so, then yes, let's lock them up. "Everyone steals" is not a good defense to stealing.
[+] [-] zthrowaway|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|4 years ago|reply
I agree that harsher punishments would not work, but compassion that simply enables this behavior isn’t the way either.
Honestly, the way the suburbs (like Bellevue WA) handle the problem via simple police intimidation (every incident is met with overwhelming police presence) to push the problems on more open nearby cities (Seattle in this case) seems to be the only that works (locally at least, it doesn’t solve the problem at all regionally or nationally).
[+] [-] shakezula|4 years ago|reply
Getting arrested permanently changed my view on our justice system. It was a nonviolent offense, related to a paperwork issue, but it resulted in a bench warrant being issued for me.
If I hadn’t just received several thousand dollars in my account from an unexpected windfall, I would not have been able to pay the jail fees. Not fines for the ticket - which was completely dropped - the jail fees for simply being arrested.
The total out the door cost to get arrested was north of $2100 for me. You can beat the case, but you can’t beat the ride.
[+] [-] buscoquadnary|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] berberous|4 years ago|reply
I feel like no one advocates for a middle ground. I usually don’t believe in locking people up excessively. I also don’t believe in effectively legalizing crime by never persecuting petty theft.
If it’s your second or third time shoplifting in bulk, I think a 6 month prison sentence is appropriate. There needs to be some penalty to disincentivize such behavior.
[+] [-] Bostonian|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattGaiser|4 years ago|reply
1. Americans are just more likely to be criminals.
2. Other nations may be equally or even more ineffective at tackling crime.
The assumption that jail doesn't work rests on the assumption that other nations track crime as effectively and that their people are equally criminal.
[+] [-] phendrenad2|4 years ago|reply
The real solutions will be technical. More precise delivery tracking (so you know when your package will arrive, so it doesn't get stolen off your porch an hour later). Drone delivery. Package lockers. Man traps at the supermarket exits.
[+] [-] kcplate|4 years ago|reply
Harsher than “no punishment” might
[+] [-] mynameishere|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitshiftfaced|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sershe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjbgkagh|4 years ago|reply
I think corporal punishment should be considered as an alternative. Hard to be a cool gangster when you have a sore ass.
[+] [-] chrismcb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xcde4c3db|4 years ago|reply
> Yes, but: An analysis of crime statistics and other reporting by The Atlantic [1] cast doubt on what it called the "great shoplifting freak-out," citing "fuzzy data" and asserting that what's being lumped together as shoplifting is actually a variety of violent crimes.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/12/shoplifti...
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|4 years ago|reply
The LEGO shelf in that store was cleared out long ago, much to my son's sadness.
But I wouldn't really call this "shoplifting" like I knew it as a kid (when my friends would do it on a stupid dare, trying not to get caught). These people...they aren't worried about getting caught, they aren't subtle about it, they just know the system isn't going to punish them so why not? Like who the heck would try to shoplift a 70 inch TV and think they could do that without anyone noticing? And the judge let him go even though he had like 5 bench warrants:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10447987/Prolific-s...
[+] [-] WalterGR|4 years ago|reply
For example, Walgreens announced in 2019 that it would shutter 200 stores. Blaming shoplifting sounds like some serious Chamber of Commerce spin to direct attention away from them abandoning locations and the jobs that go with them, and to give ammunition to pro-corporate pro-policing factions.
[+] [-] phendrenad2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tagoregrtst|4 years ago|reply
Do you have any evidence for this?
[+] [-] micromacrofoot|4 years ago|reply
Also note that shoplifting is all over the news, but wage theft is still rampant: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/07/want-t...
[+] [-] andreskytt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] switch007|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 14|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tagoregrtst|4 years ago|reply
Prison in America is unjustly violent. The only thing I agree with progressives is that, if there’s no room to jail someone humanely, they shouldn't be in jail.
This to say, the homeless doesn’t want to go to jail for a warm meal. He knows his local DA isnt punishing crime.
[+] [-] louwrentius|4 years ago|reply
They may let us eat cake, but we may opt to eat the rich instead.
Maybe you don't trust the stories over on /r/antiwork or /r/workreform but I think if even 1% is true, America is rapidly spiralling into a direction where a society can't be sustained.
For a large part of the USA population, young people have no hope of a beter future. They may even only have hope not to die and just to exist.
A home, decent wages, maybe a family one day, are probably for ever out of reach. Unbelievable for the IT tech bro for sure, with 6-figure salaries abound.
Maybe it will not be so bad after all, but I'm not so sure, to be frank.
[+] [-] buscoquadnary|4 years ago|reply
To condone theft because you feel like it is the best option for you is the epitome of that mindset. It will destroy society because we destroy the incentive for anyone to create to produce and then we see real poverty. Everyone bitching on antiwork about their hopeless future are doing so from a place where they have regular stable electricity, running clean water, an internet connection, and I am going to guess ate sometime in the last 12 or at least 24 hours.
Contrast that with my brother in law from Africa when we was growing up the government was subject to constant rebellions, and anything you had could be taken at any time, it made it hard to build and secure goods and services because much of your time was trying to survive, and any appearance of success brought those that would take it from you.
That's where we are headed if we continue to ignore the fact that justice and laws are the price of civilized society regardless of how inhumane it feels.
[+] [-] csense|4 years ago|reply
How do you design a law enforcement system that (1) doesn't grind down poor and minorities the way the current system does, yet (2) still makes punishment for minor crimes like shoplifting sufficiently swift, sure, and severe to be an effective deterrent?
Liberals tend to say "Let's focus on (1) and ignore (2)," while conservatives say "Let's focus on (2) and ignore (1)."
Is it possible to create a system satisfies both concerns? Or is there some fundamental reason that we can never have both? Do we need to pick exactly one of {(1), (2)} and just accept that we'll be stuck with whatever we decide is the lesser of two evils?
[+] [-] lamontcg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _trampeltier|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twofornone|4 years ago|reply
>They come in every day, sometimes twice a day, with laundry bags and just load up on stuff,” the Post quoted a store employee saying
We've all seen the videos. When egregious behavior like this goes unpunished and is publicized, there's no shortage of unscrupulous thieves who will line up for an easy score. There is always a subset of the population which only follows laws out of fear of punishment.
[+] [-] ejb999|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burner556|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ameminator|4 years ago|reply
If everyone woke went away tomorrow, our society would still have many of these problems.
Personally? I think it's just the chickens coming home to roost on the degradation of our society since the 1970s and it's acceleration since the 2008 financial collapse, but it could also be a lack of investment (emotional, personal and financial) in local communities.
[+] [-] creamynebula|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sometimeshuman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomlockwood|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|4 years ago|reply
That's... not a law anywhere in the US that I'm aware of.
[+] [-] shameful_idiot|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TedShiller|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e4e78a06|4 years ago|reply
It's clear that Prop 47 and the general mentality that property crimes don't matter and prosecuting them is racist has failed.
[+] [-] baryphonic|4 years ago|reply
Not sure I want that. When the state refuses to protect private property, the market solution tends to look more like Vito Corleone. That's especially true when it appears certain organized crime groups are perpetrating coordinated thefts like the one at Nordstrom. The big corporations can't afford to to have mafia payments on the books, but they can afford to pack up and leave or encase everything in cages. The local mom 'n' pop store will be willing to pay a bit for protection.
[+] [-] ardit33|4 years ago|reply
Pharmacies and grocery stores being forced to close due to unchecked theft inflict pain and major lowering of quality of life to people around the neighborhood, and especially to people that can't just drive to the next store.
Also "just use online", may not be a solution. Medicine (especially pain pills), are continuous target of thefts.
Once the stores are closed, then the organized criminals move into homes. Next you will have to start installing heavy iron bars in your home. If you walk in parts of brooklyn, you'd see older homes that had massive bars even in 2nd floor windows, just to keep the people safe.
The market just doesn't solve the collapse of society. Unchecked theft costs to all society.
[+] [-] gpt5|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qbasic_forever|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yibg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supernovae|4 years ago|reply