[axutio]

Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime".

I think it's very fair to have differing attitudes/moral thresholds for an impoverished mother shoplifting a week's worth of baby formula versus "a couple in Alabama [which] pled guilty to shifting $300,000-worth of stolen baby formula on eBay".

My reading of the article suggests that the trend discussed is a result of the latter, which is more recent and problematic, and not the former. Comments here discussing the morality of crime or a desire for policy change are missing this distinction.

[PragmaticPulp]

> I think it's very fair to have differing attitudes/moral thresholds for an impoverished mother shoplifting a week's worth of baby formula versus "a couple in Alabama [which] pled guilty to shifting $300,000-worth of stolen baby formula on eBay".

I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy.

Knowing some people who work in retail, the impact of rampant theft (organized or random) is really quite unsettling on the people who have to be around it. Retail store policies are very much about not interfering with the thieves, but it’s quite upsetting when you realize you’re in an environment where the law doesn’t really mean anything and consequences basically don’t exist for breaking the law. The few people I know in retail (including retail management) are looking to get out ASAP because it just feels so vaguely unsafe and, worse yet, large swaths of the public seem to thing the thieves are the good guys and the retail employees are the bad ones because they’re associated with a corporation.

[quacked]

Few people live in what can reasonably called a "community" any more, so the link between anonymous theft and the erosion of social culture doesn't make sense to everyone.

The most remote, homestead-y places will have unattended "stores" where you leave out goods and people come by and leave money in the basket and take what you have. The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is impossible to run a friendly, neighborhood-run store when any new customer is a potential thief. When theft goes uncontrolled, owners begin to look at their customers with suspicion. Those who don't like theft leave for more peaceful places and are replaced by owners who will tolerate theft with a big insurance policy and force.

It is continually astonishing to me that so many "community-focused" people don't realize that unilateral actions of harm inside the community (theft, assault, etc.) have ripple effects that harm the entire community. If you grow up in a region where store owners believe you might be a thief unless they personally know you and you have to constantly worry about protecting what's yours, and I grow up in an area where I'm trusted and respected by business owners and I leave my door unlocked when I go to town, how is equity meaningfully achievable between us?

[1MachineElf]

>The least remote, most-managed places have security locks on items over $15. It is impossible to run a friendly, neighborhood-run store when any new customer is a potential thief. When theft goes uncontrolled, owners begin to look at their customers with suspicion. Those who don't like theft leave for more peaceful places and are replaced by owners who will tolerate theft with a big insurance policy and force.

There's a street in northern Baltimore where you don't actually go into any of the shops. Instead, you walk into a foyer-mantrap hybrid made of bulletproof glass. There, the retail employees ask you what you want, you tell them, pay, and then they go get it for you. Experiencing it for the first time was bizarre. Not an area I felt safe parking my car.

[thegginthesky]

A few blocks away from John Hopkins right? I find that city so bizarre, you have mansions, one of the top universities in the country, and a few blocks away it's pure ghetto. People go from being friendly to staring at you as if you are an alien.

Baltimore is so weird, sometimes feels like living in Rio de Janeiro but only the bad part of Rio. None of the music scene, night life or beaches of Rio, but all of the inequality and violence.

[1MachineElf]

Yes, that's the area I'm talking about. Interesting perspective about Rio de Janeiro!

[sershe]

This (minus the bulletproof glass) is how most stores worked in Soviet union. Most of the wares were behind the counter and you asked for what you wanted and the counter person would give it to you. I guess robbery was not a big risk but theft was.

Or e.g. in Seattle in an otherwise-normal store they have alcohol under lock and key and you have to get an employer to give it to you - a hybrid model.

[chestervonwinch]

> Few people live in what can reasonably called a "community" any more, so the link between anonymous theft and the erosion of social culture doesn't make sense to everyone.

What do you think about how this relates to communities shifting almost entirely to the internet?

[quacked]

I thought about this for a while and I don't have a coherent answer.

I do think it's interesting that the Old Internet was more spontaneous, unorganized, and high-trust than the New Internet. It would be effortless to find counterexamples to this claim (back in the day I got death threats, now we have moderators for that!) but the fact remains that any new prosperous sector of the New Internet is immediately invaded by advertisers, authoritarian moderation teams, and the Eternal September effect, and the way that people present themselves on the New Internet is far more curated than in the past.

[specialist]

My wild-assed guess is that social media accelerated the underlying long-term trends.

Bowling Alone is a popular book about the decline of "social capital" (community), which is a fair intro to the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone

IMHO, technological advances begets social upheaval and accelerating inequity are the root causes for the popular usual suspects (broadcast media, cars and suburbia, social media).

Orthogonally, since Trumpism, I've been more open minded towards explanations rooted in reactionary populism (revanchism) and white racial animus.

[_xnmw]

> I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately.

Happened before in history. See the Russian Revolution and the creation of the Soviet Union. Widespread moral justification for theft of private property on class-based "social justice" arguments. It's even happening right here in this HN thread, people justifying stealing.

[KingMob]

Spoiler alert: wage theft is just as big as regular theft, if not more. https://prospect.org/economy/wage-theft-shoplifting-cost-dif...

Think of shoplifting as "inefficient redistribution".

[joenot443]

This is one of those talking points I see progressives use that has just never made sense to me.

So we can agree people's time is stolen from them, this is wrong. The part that has never made sense to me is why this means stealing as a whole something that society should encourage?

If someone is abused by their parents we would agree they suffered injustice, like people who had their wages skimmed by their employer. We would never tell someone that was abused by their parents it's now okay to abuse their own children, so why would we tell someone who's been stolen from that it's now okay for them to loot bodegas?

I sometimes can't tell if I'm being gaslighted, or if people really do look at the world in such broad strokes. When I see my local owner, Sol, have his shop trashed and stuck up by a couple 19yos, I certainly wasn't thinking about how they're probably hardworking minimum wage workers and this is just an 'inefficient redistribution' of wealth which is rightfully theirs. Some people are just dishonorable thieves, there doesn't have to be more to it than that.

[DharmaPolice]

I think people are "bending the stick" a little as a response to traditional perspectives of crime. Ask a kid to draw or describe a crime/criminal and I'm sure it'll be a guy robbing someone either on the street or in their home. That's the dominant image of crime which people are pushing back against.

At some point after the 2008 financial crisis there were some protests in London (allegedly by black block type anarchists but they were only an element). Some vandalism occurred, bank windows got smashed, other shops were targeted and some stuff got looted. Fairly usual stuff. A meeting I was in the next day about something unrelated I listened to two people get into quite a rant about the "mindless destruction" and how much all that damage would cost. Not to mention the severe punishment that anyone involved should face (hard labour, flogging, etc). And yes, I did have to be "that guy" and point out that even if they had the same protest every week for a year it probably wouldn't compare to the cost of the crisis (a very large part of which seemed to be avoidable). That wasn't intended to justify or encourage smashing windows - it's just asking people to put things in perspective.

The problem is (as with many topics) if you only/mainly hang around progressive people (or read things from that perspective) things can seem unhinged because in that limited space the only crime they ever talk about is white collar crime or corporate crime (or white supremacist crime I guess). Those opinions are meant as a reply to mainstream society, not intended as a position statement on crime.

The same things happens with foreign policy. It's useful to be reminded of the crimes of "our side" when analysing the behaviour of Russia/China/whoever. But if you only ever talk about the crimes of the West without ever criticising Russia/China AND you communicate only with likeminded people you can end up sounding very strange to anyone listening to you who isn't in your weird bubble.

[habnds]

the point isn't that stealing is ok, it's that the people who claim to care about "stealing" care about one very specific type of stealing by one group of people and don't care about another more important and more extensive form of stealing by another group of people. It begins to look as though people maybe don't care about stealing as much as they claim to.

[hotpotamus]

If people are just born criminals, then why is this a problem that is arising now? Is it actually a new problem or just media sensationalism? If it's real, then when did it start and can we surmise the reasons for the trend?

[joenot443]

I don't think anyone's saying people are born criminals. People commit crime for a variety of reasons, but it's very obvious for anyone who lives in a big American city why this is specifically a problem now.

It's absolutely not media sensationalism, I've seen people walk into CVS, Target, bodegas, etc. with a bag and clear entire shelves in full sight of other shoppers. They know nobody wants to end up on TikTok accused of committing a hate crime, so they let them leave.

The cops outside, understanding the motivations of our DA Alvin Bragg, generally don't chase as they similarly realize even if they catch them, they'll be out the next day.

It's frustrating to me when people who don't live in NYC act as if they understand the problem or worse, gaslight civilians and tell them it's just "media sensationalism".

If I had to give one reason for the trend, it is that it has come become apparent that the risk:reward for stealing:persecution has tipped in the favor of stealing, and every day more people in the city decide to take part. Blaming Amazon or 'the media' is almost insulting to the shopkeepers who've had their livelihoods ruined from this selfishness.

[faeriechangling]

Exactly, it would just be disproportionate to make a big fuss about these small time thief's, even if they are a bit morally dubious.

[ryandrake]

> I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy.

Let me try to convince you without defending the morality of the shoplifter or declaring corporations evil.

1. On the totem pole of crimes, petty shoplifting (without violence) is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to harm done the public. Jaywalking and smoking weed are lower.

2. These corporations that are being robbed already build shrinkage into their budgets. $300k of baby food is nothing to Walmart, a rounding error, and I doubt you can even see it in their bottom line. Even a smaller shop is not going to go out of business if someone walks out with all their toothpaste. It’s not analogous to stealing from an individual.

3. There are a limited number of police and I’d rather them be out there deterring violent and serious crime than protecting the inventory of companies. When every rapist, murderer, white collar fraudster, and drunk driver is behind bars, and the police have nothing left to do, then sure, go bust those dastardly deodorant thieves.

[WalterBright]

From the article:

"Rite Aid, a pharmacy, closed a branch in Hell’s Kitchen in February after losing $200,000 worth of stuff last winter. And last week Target, a big retailer, reported that a rise in “shrink” (to use the industry jargon) had reduced its gross profit margin by $400m so far this year. The National Retail Federation says inventory loss, largely driven by theft, cost retailers a record $95bn last year."

It seems that $300k is several orders of magnitude off.

The harm to the public is when the stores find it unprofitable to exist in certain neighborhoods, which makes the neighborhoods even worse off. If the stores don't close, then prices have to rise to pay for the shrinkage, which the public has to pay for.

[pbhjpbhj]

Is it unprofitable or just not profitable enough for the capitalists who could get more return elsewhere?

The cause in the increase is possibly an increase in poverty, or increase in wealth disparity?

[WalterBright]

Would you invest in something that returns 1% when there are 2% returns elsewhere? That is called the "opportunity cost", and a business is misallocating capital if the expected return is less than the opportunity cost.

> The cause in the increase is possibly an increase in poverty, or increase in wealth disparity?

I don't understand your question. Businesses have to have a return on their investment, or they go out of business. Shrinkage is a cost, so the price on the goods has to be raised to compensate.

    Profit = Revenue - Cost

[midasuni]

The price will be increased until people stop buying (either because they do without, go elsewhere, or shoplift)

The cost of shrinkage doesn’t factor into the price a business can charge. You don’t decide “I will buy X for $1 and sell it for $3”, you go “I can sell X for $3, where’s the cheapest I can buy it and does it make sense”

Now if you have a competitor next door selling X for $2.50 you will struggle to sell for $3, even if your rent or your supplier is higher

[generj]

Just as an addition, it’s worth noting most store theft comes from employees not the public.

It’s expensive to minimize opportunities for the public to steal. Basic speed bumps preventing employees (who can steal more extensively) are less expensive and tend to be the focus.

[WalterBright]

> it’s worth noting most store theft comes from employees not the public

Employee theft is always a problem, too, but whether it is worse than shrinkage or not is kind of irrelevant - it's still going to cost the business money which will mean that they'll raise prices or go under.

Employee theft can and does cause businesses to fail.

[concordDance]

Two things:

Shoplifting results in shops closing down in poorer areas or raising prices. This is quite bad for the poor.

People getting away with shoplifting and seeing others get away with it makes them feel they are not in a law abiding environment and makes them far more willing to break other laws and do things like deal drugs, beat up/kill their enemies and take the law into their own hands. A look at the murder rate in poor areas is suggestive.

[leni536]

> These corporations that are being robbed already build shrinkage into their budgets.

Doesn't this just mean that it is priced in? So thiefs are stealing from paying customers.

[wink]

Pretty sure it's meant as "they're pricing in a (low single-digit) percentage of theft" and not "every week someone grabs 90% of the deodorant".

[leni536]

So it's somehow OK to steal $0.01 each from 1000 people.

[thfuran]

Yes, it does.

[monero-xmr]

It’s morally wrong to steal, and has been since the beginning of civilization.

“Though shalt not steal” - Ten Commandments

“If a man has stolen goods from a temple, or house, he shall be put to death; and he that has received the stolen property from him shall be put to death.” - Code of Hammurabi

Private property is the foundation of civilization and pretending theft doesn’t matter undermines the basis of our world. All theft is wrong.

[mschuster91]

And yet, even the Bible has provisions for poor people [1]:

> “If you go into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your bag. 25 If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.

[1] https://www.bibleserver.com/ESV/Deuteronomy23%3A25

[afiori]

I feel like this particular verse would not support reselling 300k worth of stolen baby formula on ebay.

[falcor84]

While I agree that it's morally wrong to steal, you lost me at "All theft is wrong". I think there's a deep reason why stories about moral (or at least mostly ambiguous) thieves are so prevalent. Two major examples are Robin Hood and more recently Andor, both about stealing as a way to rebel against an overwhelmingly powerful and negative authority.

[t0suj4]

People love retribution, especially when group of people they identify with benefit. It does not matter whether the cause for said retribution is real or not.

You sleep easier when you don't know what happens to the people who won't receive the shipment a robbed grain merchant cannot pay for.

[einpoklum]

Bible laws are imposed rules of violent hostile overlords, not the foundation of civilization. Although you could argue that the way civilization has evolved, those kinds of rules _are_ its foundation :-(

I might agree that all theft is wrong, but - as Proudhon aptly put it: La propriété, c'est le vol !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

[mschuster91]

Disagree a bit here. The Bible and other religious texts were not necessarily decrees by "hostile overlords", they were the back-then equivalent of what we would call a Constitution these days - the foundational rules of society. Particularly what Christians call the "Old Testament", the Jews the Torah and whatever Muslims call the foundations prior to Quran today... it's essentially the same text, the same rules.

It's micro-managing every aspect of their lives to the same degree modern laws do - everything from a basic criminal code (Ten Commandments) over food safety laws (e.g. the ban for Jews and Muslims to eat pork) and employment regulation (work-free Sabbath) to providing answers to specific legal questions (inheritance, paying damages for livestock or raped women) and prescribing religious rituals. Even how to properly wage war was written down there... all of that was stuff the old tribes learned the hard way or decided upon and documented. For the Quran, a good example for that is the love of Prophet Muhammad on cats - the tribes learned that cats keep grain storages free from pests!

The problem is that over the millennia, the original context of these rules being tribally discussed and agreed-upon laws or some of these being the documentation of dispute resolutions got lost, and dogmatic / religious interpretations took favor, leading to entrenchment of rules that no longer made any sense (e.g. the mentioned pork ban or ridiculous interpretations of the work-free Sabbath). Additionally, some of the contents got lost or modified in translation - the best example is the "72 virgins" that await a Muslim martyr in heaven, which may very well have rather meant "vine grapes" [1]. FWIW, the Christian "New Testament" can also be seen as a reform-oriented amendment of the Torah.

Religious texts make way more sense when viewing them as "this is the collection of hundreds or thousands of years of tribal knowledge, order and jurisprudence", which is (IMO as an atheist) the only way these texts should be interpreted as. And yet, it still makes sense to also see the part of the rules and regulations that haven't gotten outdated as a foundation of how even our modern societies should look like (e.g. parts of the Ten Commandments, Jesus' teachings on how to view and help the poor and discriminated).

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-a...

[einpoklum]

> a Constitution these days - the foundational rules of society.

A constitution is what a ruling class formalizes as foundational rules of the state. Society is mostly made up of the subjects of states.

This is perhaps more of a gray area these days - as most states are official democracies and have elections and such - but I would argue it is still essentially the case. But regardless of the present - this was certainly the case in more ancient times, where some well-armed and well-connected person or family declared itself to be the rulers. The majority of the population were simply conquered, lorded over, by such kingdoms; and whatever codex of rules was put down in writing (if at all) was not even known to them, let alone constrained to agree with their mores and customs.

About the (Jewish) bible specifically - the legislative part of it is a collection of different, and partly contradictory texts from different periods in the history of ancient Judea and the holy land, that was put in writing only much later. Most subjects of the Judean kings were not even that committed to Yahweh as a god. Naturally, such decrees and commandments were not written to be entirely divorced and contradictory to surrounding society, but they were first and foremost impositions in the interest of the rulers, not representation of the views of the ruled.

PS - From my (admittedly partial) familiarity with devout muslims, I very much doubt people going on a martyrdom (istish'haad) missions here in Palestine expect to get virgins after they die, nothing of the sort. There isn't a "piety and modesty now, promiscuity and debauchery after death" kind of a perception. Again, AFAIK. I can't access the NYT link, there's a paywall.

[raverbashing]

> already build shrinkage into their budgets

This is a shortsighted take. This is as stupid as the corporations buying "cyber insurance" not realizing the cases are going up and that prevention and processes are needed. Then comes next year their premiums shoot up. Who would have thought it?!

Yes they "build shrinkage" for a forecasted number. If that number goes up and you get people swiping large amounts of products that number becomes meaningless. Then people wonder why did the store close or why a deodorant there costs $10 and is locked behind the counter

[exitb]

Im sure that Walmart is the gold standard of cost optimization, but it's not universal. Many stores operate on very low margins, so it's easy to imagine that just a few missing cans of baby formula actually brings down the profitability of the entire shelf down to zero.

[mschuster91]

> I’ve also noticed a weird tendency to downplay theft lately, either through projecting a theoretical moral justification on to the shoplifter or by insinuating that retail stores are evil corporations and therefore deserve no sympathy.

Well... it's not that weird. The big chain stores like Walmart ruthlessly exploit their workers to the point of them being forced to apply for food stamps [1], while the owner class makes literally a dozen billions of dollars a year in net profits [2]. Additionally, Walmart is infamous for killing off small businesses around them [3]. So, I don't have much sympathy at all for these corporations and Walmart in particular.

With ever more and more people being unable to make a honest living - over half the US has less than 1000$ in savings [4] - it's no surprise that shoplifting for survival is on the rise and at least somewhat accepted in society.

Unfortunately, small stores get caught up in the crossfire as they can't afford to bear the rising cost of shoplifting.

We need better wages for the 99% and higher taxes for the 1% so that we can get away from forcing people to steal to survive.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/net-in...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-14/radiating...

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/56percent-of-americans-cant-...

[prottog]

> forcing people to steal to survive

I really don't think these people are choosing between stealing and starving.

[danielheath]

According to the [USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...), nearly 10% of americans have missed meals in the past year because they did not have enough food.

[mschuster91]

With children, it's worse. Three million children in the US are "food insecure" and 30 million (!!!) qualify for free school lunches [1], often their only source for a warm and healthy meal, and in some places where school meals aren't free parents have to go into debt with the threat of losing custody looming over them [2].

From my German POV this is an absolute insanity.

[1] https://www.insider.com/us-states-with-the-highest-number-of...

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/20/us/pennsylvania-school-lu...

[from]

They're choosing between stealing and withdrawal symptoms.

[paul7986]

Allowing those to shoplift / turn a blind eye to it is a breakdown of society!

What are the good reasons that led to and allows this?

[sbarre]

Letting people starve or be homeless is also a breakdown of society.

One is harm to capitalism, property and profit, one is harm to neighbours and fellow humans,.

Which one is worse, knowing you can't solve it all?

[joenot443]

Whenever I witness people clearing shelves in NYC, it's never been by someone who appeared homeless. Usually they're wearing clothes as nice as I am, sometimes they've got Airpods in. Let's not make up excuses for criminals, yeah?

[sbarre]

I was speaking broadly, you're citing an anecdote. Not the same thing.

[dls2016]

> Most of the comments here are ignoring the difference between regular old shoplifting and the trend driving the increase discussed in the article, which they're referring to as "organized retail crime".

I guess, but conversely I'd argue that organized retail theft has been around pretty much as long as supply chains have existed. That's the mob's bread and butter. The phrase "riding shotgun" is in common use. Perhaps mass shoplifting from the store is a new tactic, but personally I look at this situation and ask, "what has changed"?

For one, we've sort of collectively realized how terrible modern jails are (Rikers anyone?). And that's good.

A second conclusion I draw is that retail stores have been gutted... walmart-ized... every ounce of efficiency wrung out of them. Have you ever been to one of these massive retail outlets and had trouble finding anyone that works there? A few months ago everyone was clutching pearls about some 150 yd stretch of train track in LA that was continually being robbed... and I can make a wild guess that this was the result of 1) skeleton crews, 2) minimal security on the ground and 3) shipping containers that are running with sub-standard defense mechanisms because they're simply too much work (slows down loading, probably break a lot, etc.).

Yes organized crime should be punished, but these companies seem to throw up they're hands and say "Gee golly, we have no idea why $20 million dollars of merchandise watched by 5 overworked, low wage employees and 1 loss prevention officer is such a target! It's a mystery!"

I don't hate mega corporations (ok maybe a little), but they definitely have a hand in creating this situation. And it's rarely commented upon when discussing the recent rise in shoplifting.

(Edit: I forgot my favorite shoplifting fact... up until recently, reports showed that both shoplifting and wage theft "cost the economy" around $40 billion per year. Comparing prosecution rates of the two crimes is left as an exercise for the reader.)

[kriskrunch]

You have it backwards. Saying it's the store's fault is like blaming a victim of rape.

Once I chased a thief out to the waiting car, and blocked the door from closing, leaned into the car, and came to my senses...

I let them go. It was only worth $750. And I wasn't about to brawl inside a car with two thugs.

I could have been stabbed or shot. It's not worth the risk. And I was the store owner. Let me tell you straight up: it's not understaffing.

I would expressly tell my staff to not risk their safety for merch.

A couple years after I sold the store, they had an armed robbery at closing and lost about a hundred thousand. Also, break-ins went up: they tried cutting the safe out but couldn't reach the rear bolts to cut them. They even stole the security cameras.

I only reported once because I knew the guy and I felt betrayed. I don't know for certain, but I think the vast majority of retail theft goes unreported.

And your favorite shoplifting fact is down-right offensive. If you were more balanced in your counterargument you'd also ask the reader: What is the cost to the public for added security, staff, deterrence tech, and lost merch? And lost sense of safety and security? Those are priceless in the eyes of most reasonable people.

It's sad to think we may have lived through the golden era of retail where stores were relatively safe and pallets of merch could be left out unguarded.

These gangs are ruining it for everyone. We shouldn't even have this discussion. We should all unify with retailers of all sizes. Theft is straight up wrong, and the thieves should be punished.

[everforward]

> And your favorite shoplifting fact is down-right offensive. If you were more balanced in your counterargument you'd also ask the reader: What is the cost to the public for added security, staff, deterrence tech, and lost merch? And lost sense of safety and security? Those are priceless in the eyes of most reasonable people.

Sure, and the counterpoint is how much does it cost to provide those services publicly? The cost of catching, prosecuting and jailing the person is almost certainly more than the cost of the goods.

E.g. you chased off someone that stole $750 worth of goods. The average cost to incarcerate someone for a year is $31k. They will have cost the public more than $750 if they spend just 10 days in jail (which they definitely will if they don't post bail). If they spend 30 days in jail, which they could easily do just waiting for trial, it will have cost taxpayers ~$2,550 just to jail them. Add on the costs of hiring prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and more cops to do all the work here, and the public will have spent something like an order of magnitude more than the actual theft.

Theft is wrong, the thieves should be punished, but I don't know that the public spending huge sums to prevent low levels of theft is even worthwhile. The court system is about the most expensive deterrent I can think of.

If I were asked to vote on it, I'm sure not going to opt to spend an order of magnitude more trying to punish thieves. It sucks, but it would cost me less to just pay whatever markup the stores have to charge to cover the loss.

[1MachineElf]

>The average cost to incarcerate someone for a year is $31k.

In the Baltimore-Washington stretch of Maryland, it's hard to find a retail store with an ATM in the front, because it's common for thieves to crash a vehicle through the glass into the ATM, load it into their vehicle, and drive away. I've talked with a couple store owners where it has happened, and apparently, nobody was ever caught in their cases.

Baltimore has some parts where you can't even enter stores. Instead, you have to wait in enclosed bulletproof glass areas while the clerks gather items for you.

The restaurant where I work at on the weekends once got a GrubHub driver open carrying with a bulletproof vest. One of our regular GrubHub drivers got carjacked by a man who shot a police officer right out front of the restaurant.

Everyone I've mentioned so far is black, in case it matters.

If we do not swallow the costs of jailing lawbreakers, then the rest of America will be like this.

>I'm sure not going to opt to spend an order of magnitude more trying to punish thieves.

Judges typically balance 3 primary factors in sentencing criminals:

- Punishment of the criminal.

- Protecting the community from the criminal.

- Provide justice and closure to victims of the criminal.

Punishing the thief is just one aspect of this. It's an important one, because it serves as a deterrent for future would-be thieves. Crime is going unpunished in Baltimore. As a result, the community is not protected and victims have no justice. People have been leaving for years now.

[polski-g]

If they extended castle doctrine to place of business the problem would solve itself quickly. And it would cost tax payers nothing

[capitalsigma]

Understaffing doesn't justify crime. You probably understaff your home security, leaving it empty all day while you're at work. Do you deserve to be robbed?

[dls2016]

> Understaffing doesn't justify crime.

Noting the existence of theft throughout the ages is not an endorsement.

My point is that we should be careful who we ask to pay for enforcement. It's expensive to maintain a system of courts and jails for petty crimes. Rikers is a rather egregious example, but almost $1 billion per year where 85% of detainees are pretrial!

I think it's legitimate to ask to what exent the community should cover the enforcement cost.

[karatinversion]

The community pays either way - they are the source of the revenue that has to cover any private enforcement! Law enforcement is a public good and will be under supplied by private parties that cannot internalise all the gain!

[bobbylarrybobby]

When you spread the risk out among thousands of homes near you, a door with a lock may well be a “sufficiently staffed” home. Meanwhile stores may be the only game for several blocks, miles even depending on which part of the country.

[Broken_Hippo]

These aren't the same.

Understaffing and such things are like having locks on your house, yet only locking the windows while leaving the house, garage, and shed doors open. You may not deserve to have your stuff taken, but everyone can understand why they chose your house instead of the one next door. If you aren't willing to do the bare minimum - shutting doors and locking them - you were minimally more OK with the risk.

And to be fair, retail places usually aren't "robbed". They have their stuff shoplifted and stolen: Robbing a store generally creates images of armed intruders, and most of it isn't like that.

[concordDance]

Having extra staff will have no effect on shoplifting if it isn't prosecuted and the police don't arest for it.

And note that security measures are deadweight loss to society.

[taurath]

> The phrase "riding shotgun" is in common use.

I’m in my 30s and this is the first time I’ve ever actually understood the historical meaning of this

[jnwatson]

"Riding shotgun" was from the stagecoach days. It was the seat next to the driver that acted as a bodyguard.

[WeylandYutani]

Man this is so true. I worked in a supermarket when I was 15 and there was no way in hell I was going to give a shit when I saw someone stealing.

Nobody is going to risk it for 7 euro an hour lmao.