ChatterBank7 mins ago
Why Can't We Deal With Shop Lifting?
19 Answers
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was just saying to the boss last night that in Spanish supermarkets the security operatives have an impressive baton in their belt and the ones I've seen don't look worried about using it to get the attention of thieves.
Of course our lawmakers adopt a more touchy feely approach and arrest those who defend property. That's the answer.
Along with allowing for cultural differences too. 🙄
Because shoplifting is a very multifaceted crime
A) crime of desperation, usually those who have addictions, or who due to extreme poverty are tempted apparently a common reason given by women is to obtain gifts for a child when they can't get the item from their income, Most commonly low level.
B) Crime of addiction. Risk taking behaviour when there is no financial driver the person stealing does it for the adrenaline buzz or dopamine reward. Often starts with children daring one another in some cases it carried on.
C) organised or semi organised, people steal on demand, sometimes those involved are illegals, or have debts to those involved in organised crime. Usually work in gangs, with distraction techniques or a willingness to use violence of aggression to escape.
D) crime of protest... The processing of high value items as say a bag of spuds through a self checkout, the perpetrator considers it justified as a protest at the change in the shop's processing of sales.
E) dissociation... A failure to realise that even though the crime is perpetrated on a business there is an impact associated with their behaviour. Also covers the theft from larger businesses where the person considers their actions to be so small as not to count.
On the strength of the above which were all I could think of at the moment there are a number of root causes
1) poverty, with associated separation from mainstream society. There will always be those who want what they can't afford but those who steal from what they perceive as genuine need may respond to proper support including education in money management or with addiction.
2) risk addiction could to some extent be reduced by offering alternatives Young people especially are sheltered from almost all risk when it is needed to develop situation assessment skills. Education services may have a role
3) Criminal justice system needs to be enabled to accept that lower entry level crimes should be dealt with seriously but also in ways that address the underlying cause. Where organised crime is involved it should be treated as seriously as drugs or sex crimes with those at the bottom of the scale being considered to be victims rather than villains. Those further up in the organisation being targeted for harsher punishment.
4) A new type of prison? Maybe reeducation centres for people in the early stages of criminal activity , to include training in skills to increase employability, mental health support, addiction services to include proper therapy for those for whom addiction is a symptom of deeper underlying pathology. These could provide out of work hours compulsory accomodation. Reducing contact with the persons circle that supports the criminal behaviour. Or full time intense retraining and correction. Just locking people up doesn't work. There's probably more I can say but that's enough to be going on with
“The cons closed many court houses.”
Fewer were necessary because it was determined that shop theft where the value was less than £200 Aamong other things) would not be prosecuted other than in “exceptional circumstances”.
That decision was not driven by lack of court capacity but by a policy introduced in 2004 to effectively decriminalise such offences. There is little point in making this yet another party politcial issue because you should note this was at a time when a Labour government had been in power for seven years and the Conservatives were six years away from taking office. The Labour government need not have taken the measure and the Coalition and Conservative governments had plenty of time to reverse it. But it seems they were all deleriously happy with the new scheme.
This involved issuing penalty notices instead of prosecutions, ordering the thief to pay £80. This seemed a little odd because presumably the thief had stolen goods because he had no cash. But there it was.
This represented quite good “value” because it was less than the penalty for driving at 35mph in a 30 limit (which is £100). As well as that, drivers committing four such offences would find themselves facing a ban. But there was no such punishment for cumulative offences of theft.
So the courts were closed because a number of low level offences such as shoplifting, criminal damage and disorderly behaviour were no longer handled by them. It wasn’t that the offences still required prosecution but there was no court capacity.
“Because shoplifting is a very multifaceted crime”
It is not so multifaceted as you suggest (not in terms of volumes, anyway).
Over 80% of low level acquisitive crime is committed to fund addiction. I have my own views on the links between addiction and the need to steal which we need not go into here. But basically by far and away the majority of shoplifting is committed by drug addicts.
If that is to be satisfactorily addressed as you suggest, the way to do that is by courts imposing sentences that involve rehabilitation (via, initially, the probation service) as was done pre-2004. Instead, those who are caught are slapped with an £80 fine (which also has to be funded by theft from shops, if it is paid at all) time after time.
So plainly and simply, Tora, it isn't that we cannot deal with shoplifters. It is that we will not. People who steal from shops know this, so they continue to do it, imposing costs on the retailers which all their customers have to bear.
"There are some strange items security tagged in Tesco."
Some shoplifing is now being committed "to order" with some thieves actually supplying small corner shops with plundered goods. This, in my view, should be among the "exceptional circumstances" which warrant prosecution (in the same way that possession (of drugs) with intent to supply is a more serious offence than simple possession) and should also see the small shopkeeper's collar felt.
Individual outlets will obviously tag whatever goods they notice is stolen most. Last time I looked, razor blades were among the most popular items (easy to conceal, small, light, high value relative to their size/weight).
'Tagging' some items such as bottles of spirits is one thing, but ou local Morrison's has now introduced doors over these shelves and you have to ring for an employee to come and open it if you want to buy one!
I object strongly to that. If I want to buy a good bottle of Whisky for someone, I want to pick it up and read the blurb. Also, it could take ages for an employee to arrive (there isn't one standing around) andthat would slow down shopping considerably. I'll buy those items elsewhere now, so it's a rather counter-productive precaution.
Yes, it's a lack of will by the justice system and politicians. It must fuel inflation, but has been allowed to grow into such a huge problem that it will be costly to change it.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Why Can't We Deal With Shop Lifting?
News12 mins ago
Ladies - Are You Ready For Winter?
Body & Soul17 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
Body & Soul29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.