[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.