To what degree should police enforce the theft law?

[tk149]

I read this article in the local news today. Although local in nature, the article brings up a good point that affects us all. I'm interested in knowing what you all think about how far should police go when enforcing theft laws. Zero tolerance? $10? $1000?

Background: Woodman's is a local grocery store and has a reputation for being cheaper than the other local stores. I've only been to one of them -it's very large and always crowded.

As you read the article, think about these questions.

1. To what degree should police enforce the law?

2. If you don't think it should be zero tolerance, what limit (dollar or otherwise) would you set?

3. Some of the commenters (below the article) suggested a ticket system for shoplifting, similar to traffic tickets, to reduce the amount of time the courts/cops spend on these crimes. What other alternatives can you think of?

Woodman's accounts for 70 percent of all retail theft calls at large grocery stores

Woodman's accounts for 70 percent of all retail theft calls at large grocery stores
Steven Elbow ? 8/20/2009 2:03 pm

Madison police officers have become a regular fixture at the city's two Woodman's stores, and they're not happy about it.

The giant grocery retailer accounted for about 70 percent of the city's retail theft calls at large grocery stores in 2007, and that trend continued in 2008, eating up police time that could be better spent, police say.

"Are our resources better used for something like this, or can we adjust our response so we can get those officers to address speeding complaints, quality of life-type issues and more violent crime -- issues that our citizens really want us to focus on?" asks Madison Police Lt. Carl Strasburg.

It's not clear why Woodman's dominates the calls for retail theft, though a longtime employee perk could provide some answers. The Janesville-based company rewards employees with $35 if they catch a shoplifter, and the incentive appears to be working. One employee, interviewed outside the east side store, says that shoplifters are caught at a rate of "probably at least one every day." But Clint Woodman, vice president of Woodman's, says his stores have more shoplifting incidents because they have more customers.

Strasburg says that last year, police responded to about 600 shoplifting calls citywide for merchandise worth less than $20 -- including such items as drinks, condoms and meat. That's about 30 percent of all retail theft cases. Strasburg estimates that those 600 calls burned about 840 hours of police officer time, or 105 full eight-hour shifts.

"That gets to the crux of why we're taking a look at this -- to see if there's a better way to do retail theft responses," he says.

Woodman's isn't the only grocery store chain that has been generating police calls for retail theft. Strasburg says police have also contacted Roundy's Supermarkets Inc., owner of Pick 'n Save and Copps, about cutting back police response to petty thefts at their stores. "They thought they could work with it," he says. But Woodman's, he says, has "some concerns."

Strasburg says the department is considering all options, including getting stores to add security staff, posting warnings on frequently stolen merchandise and not displaying merchandise in areas customers pass through after they've paid. He didn't want to go into more detail until police firmed up their proposals.

Woodman says police have proposed setting a benchmark value of stolen merchandise -- say, $50 or $75 -- that would trigger a police response. "We don't think that them raising it to $75 or $50, or whatever it is, is good for Madison," he says.

Woodman says the two Madison stores already let police off the hook for shoplifted merchandise worth less than $10, which the store handles through the police department's self-reporting system, even though he says the system is ineffective.

"If (police) don't respond to it, there's no attention paid to that particular shoplifter," he says. "It never gets followed through if you just self-report."

Strasburg points out that the Dane County District Attorney's Office has already made changes to its policy regarding retail theft. The office now only prosecutes thefts from chain grocery stores for merchandise valued at $200 or more.

Woodman calls some of the preventive measures being floated by the police department -- including removing product displays on the other side of cash registers -- "absolutely ludicrous."

"If you sit there and try to do everything you can to prevent shoplifters, you're not going to be selling any merchandise," he says.

Tyrone Bell sees both sides of the argument. A member of the city's Public Safety Review Committee, Bell also owns Satara Home and Baby Store, a small retail business. He says stores should take some responsibility for preventing thefts, and he has some problems with Woodman's policy of rewarding employees for catching shoplifters.

While shopping at Woodman's on the west side a while back, Bell says he watched a visibly pregnant young woman get chased throughout the store. "It was just awful, knocking stuff over," he says.

But he wants the comfort of knowing that if he calls the cops to his store, they'll come. "What can you say?" he says. "That's their job."

Strasburg points out that stores can take civil action against shoplifters. State law allows retailers to recoup up to three times the value of the stolen item. But whether pursuing small-time shoplifters is worth the money is still an open question.

One area collection agency specializing in retail theft recently went out of business, and another, the Stark Agency, is gearing up to provide that service for clients for whom it currently pursues bad checks.

"We're researching the feasibility of providing the full range of service for retail theft," says Pauline Kussart, owner of the Stark Agency.

Woodman expressed some interest in learning that a collection agency might be providing such a service. He says he's not against spending money to pursue shoplifters. Beside the $35 employee reward, he says he was prepared to pay the police department for its time.

"We said, 'Charge us for the calls.' And they said, 'We're not in the business of charging people,' " he says. With Woodman, it's the principle. "It's just not right to let someone shoplift and get away with it," he says, "which is what they're doing."

Here's my opinion:
1. Police should have zero tolerance. Anything else sends the message that it's okay to steal as long as you don't steal too much. Once that message is sent, you'll get an increase in the number of crimes. This doesn't mean that police should patrol more (which costs more), but they should respond to every reported crime, especially if there are witnesses and cameras.

Of course, this means police need more money (assuming that they are already operating at full capacity). Increasing fines would pay for this.

2. Zero tolerance.

3. I like the idea of a ticket system, but have no idea how it would be implemented and enforced.

Cliffs:
Grocery store reports many shoplifters.
Police say it costs them a lot of man-hours and don't want to show up.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Drinks, condoms, meat? Nice town...

Anyway, I've never thought about this topic before but I like the idea of giving someone a ticket for stealing a pack of bubble gum over giving them a cold cell visit.

 

[ProfJohn]

Fines or tickets seems to be the way to go.

Make this a revenue generator for the city and watch how fast they jump at these calls.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Drinks, condoms, meat? Nice town...

Actually that is any town.

Condoms are stolen because they are expensive.

Same with meat.

If you have never worked retail you have no idea what gets stolen and just how much of it is stolen.

One local store had nearly all of its Valentines day cards stolen. They just sell them on the corner or at a flea market etc etc.

 

[Lanyap]

Zero tolerance and a minimum ticket fine that makes a statement but is still reasonable, like $50.

 

[Ackmed]

I would give tickets out for smokers who flick their butts out the window. Or on the sidewalk when walking down the street. Someone who litters, is someone who litters. Just because its a cig butt, and not a 2 liter bottle, doesnt mean its any different. Imagine how many butts are tossed every day.

Obviously Im in support of zero tolerance.

 

[StageLeft]

It still needs to be criminalized. If it is not it becomes simply a risk vs reward prospect about stealing $10 for possible, say, a $500 fine and a lot more people would do it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Put a fine in place, and the police will be there happily for their revenue generation.

 

[JS80]

Police probably think it's below their pay grade.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Zero tolerance and a minimum ticket fine that makes a statement but is still reasonable, like $50.

$250 is also reasonable and it makes a bigger statement.

Telling retailers to sue people is not reasonable. Triple damages is not worth the effort it would take to sue them, and it's not a significant disincentive.

 

[Fern]

Woodman says police have proposed setting a benchmark value of stolen merchandise -- say, $50 or $75 -- that would trigger a police response.

WTH???

Great idea, then everyone knows they spend all day stealing stuff at different stores without any problem as long as it's under $50/75 at each store. Sounds dumb to me.

Fines? Yeah OK, but the police still have to come to the store to issue a fine. I see no change there. If the accused has valid ID, OK issue them a ticket etc at least the police don't need to take up their time transporting them back to jail and booking them in.

But I have even a better idea - How about they just keep arresting the thieves? So, the cops have to go to the store once a day to bust a criminal, big deal that's their job.

I'd like to hear about the more important things they have to do.

Fern

 

[yowolabi]

Maybe it would be better to charge Woodsmans as they proposed. Police are a limited resource, and it hardly seems fair to the rest of the city that one business can monopolize a public resource like that.

It's true that it'll never be split equally, but when it's that unbalanced and it looks like that'll never change, some step has to be taken. Woodsman seems resistant to taking long term steps that would make it harder for people to steal things, and they are insistent on calling the cops for petty thievery that affects no one but them.

The police are there for the public good. Is that served by spending this much time arresting petty thieves that won't be prosecuted? Maybe if Woodsman was being charged for the high number of calls, it would become more economically feasible to implement better security of their own. Preventing thievery instead of catching it afterwards.

 

[Infohawk]

Put them in jail and fine them.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Maybe it would be better to charge Woodsmans as they proposed. Police are a limited resource, and it hardly seems fair to the rest of the city that one business can monopolize a public resource like that.

Huh? One business can "monopolize" a resource? Woodmans is the victim of the crime. By what logic do you blame the victim of a crime for the crime? Do you blame the rape victim for the rape as well? By that logic, the onus is on the victim to prevent the crime, not on the police to do their job.

The police are there for the public good. Is that served by spending this much time arresting petty thieves that won't be prosecuted? Maybe if Woodsman was being charged for the high number of calls, it would become more economically feasible to implement better security of their own. Preventing thievery instead of catching it afterwards.

Again... WTF? If someone keeps breaking into your home and you call the police, you think it's fine for the police to say "you need to install an expensive alarm system and pay us a fee, or we're not coming there anymore"? That makes no sense. Law enforcement is their job. Yes, if you don't take steps to protect yourself, you are more likely to become a victim, but that has no bearing on whether the police should do their job.

I say zero tolerance. Like Fern pointed out, if you ever set a "minimum" level at which the police will respond, everyone in the world will start stealing just under that level, with no fear of repercussions.

 

[ZeGermans]

Shooting anyone that is unarmed and taking something from you is murder.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Maybe it would be better to charge Woodsmans as they proposed. Police are a limited resource, and it hardly seems fair to the rest of the city that one business can monopolize a public resource like that.

Huh? One business can "monopolize" a resource? Woodmans is the victim of the crime. By what logic do you blame the victim of a crime for the crime? Do you blame the rape victim for the rape as well? By that logic, the onus is on the victim to prevent the crime, not on the police to do their job.

The police are there for the public good. Is that served by spending this much time arresting petty thieves that won't be prosecuted? Maybe if Woodsman was being charged for the high number of calls, it would become more economically feasible to implement better security of their own. Preventing thievery instead of catching it afterwards.

Again... WTF? If someone keeps breaking into your home and you call the police, you think it's fine for the police to say "you need to install an expensive alarm system and pay us a fee, or we're not coming there anymore"? That makes no sense. Law enforcement is their job. Yes, if you don't take steps to protect yourself, you are more likely to become a victim, but that has no bearing on whether the police should do their job.

I say zero tolerance. Like Fern pointed out, if you ever set a "minimum" level at which the police will respond, everyone in the world will start stealing just under that level, with no fear of repercussions.

+1 And the costs of these thefts will inevitably be passed onto the consumer. Businesses that cannot afford to pass on the costs because it will drive away customers completely or cannot sustain writing off continual theft of their goods would also then be forced to shut down. Urban blight due to boarded up store fronts is not a pretty thing once a city has given up going after thieves.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Fines or tickets seems to be the way to go.

Make this a revenue generator for the city and watch how fast they jump at these calls.

Bingo...especially considering the Police Lt.'s first response was they could better spend the time addressing "speeding complaints". I'm assuming this is a small town so a lot of their revenue comes from said fines. Even if it is not a small town the local Municipality generates ticket revenue. They would rather be out making money than spending their time......doing what the taxpayer actually pays them to do.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Shooting anyone that is unarmed and taking something from you is murder.

Not in Texas.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Zero tolerance and a minimum ticket fine that makes a statement but is still reasonable, like $50.

Why should the fine be reasonable? Make the fine HURT enough to be a deterrent.


Maybe they could set a minimum arrest limit of $50. Any amount less and the cops just take the thief around the back and beat the motherfucker with their nightsticks for a while. (length of time and severity of beating dependent on dollar amount and prior offenses)

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Shooting anyone that is unarmed and taking something from you is murder.

Not in Texas.

texas is a hellhole that has a hilariously racist reason for existing.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Shooting anyone that is unarmed and taking something from you is murder.

Not in Texas.

texas is a hellhole that has a hilariously racist reason for existing.

HAHAHAHA....someone in Missouri casting aspersions at Texas. That is rich. Missouri is a shithole. I can say that since I was born there. At least in Texas the State Government understands it's citizens' rights. People like you want to give the losers of society "super rights". From all the license plates I see from all over the country of people that appear to be living and WORKING here now I assume we are doing things better than most states. Texas has long been a place people flee State economies wrecked by Democrats and their policies.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is just about zero theft in Saudi Arabia. The people there have tremendous respect for their hands.

Theft destroys a society. If the society is worth preserving it's worth a hand or two. Theft ends when the threat is real. And the really neat part is that when punishment is really really certain it's almost never needed. Those few fools who tempt fate, I have heard, have their hands nailed to public buildings as a small reminder.

 

[JEDIYoda]

if you are caught stealing you should have your nhand cut off!! I promise that person will never steal again!!

 

[MedicBob]

Woodmans is a good store and usually has items no one else around carries.

Anywho,

Why doesn't Madison PD just assign the calls with a priority like most other places do? I know it is Madison and a circus. If they don't want to send an actual officers there at least make it so the DA will prosecute with their own collected evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
if you are caught stealing you should have your nhand cut off!! I promise that person will never steal again!!

Well, the way I understand it is that next time it's the other hand and the third time your head.