[fluoridation]

No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.

[hdgvhicv]

In the U.K. you get points on a license for being caught speeding (and other offence). Typically 3.

Knock 12 points up over 3 years and you lose your license.

The problem is the time it takes from being caught to getting the letter can be a couple of weeks. You could literally go from 0 points to license loss for driving 10 miles on an empty road with changeable speed limits and have no idea until a week or two later when you get 4 letters arrive.

Now until the court takes away your license you’re still allowed to drive, but it gives you no chance to change your behaviour.

[fluoridation]

That's an imperfection of the system, not a designed feature of it. It's also possible you sometimes go over the speed limit and there are no sensors around to detect that condition.

[FirmwareBurner]

*loicense

[widforss]

You are correct, I didn't realize this nuance.

[pixl97]

I mean, if they walked out with a felony amount of stuff the first time the system would have tossed them directly in jail.

I can understand why the stores will do it this way. Each prosecution is very expensive. If you're going to go though the effort with the legal system bring a case that stops the culprit. More so, doing this tends to scare the hell out of people that think they've gotten away with something. Kinda like the thievery version of the Santa Claus song.

"Walmart knows when you are sleeping. Walmart knows when your away, Walmart knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake".

[Ekaros]

Well, maybe there should be some sort of public registry where this sort of in process evidence would be publicly viable for you and others. Then you could regularly check it.

[fluoridation]

If the store is going to be tracking this information, it could just as easily show a message to the offender. "Hey, we're on to you. Knock it off, or else." Going straight for the jugular is just rude.

[anewonenow]

How about stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible. Trying to justify stealing power tools “bec it’s a big corporation” further degrades society and creates a dishonest low-trust culture.

I live in Illinois and look forward to collecting my $2k check for this but the reality is that the only person to blame for the theft is the person committing the theft. The same way we don’t blame women for how they dress or just because someone is trusting that doesn’t make it right to attempt to steal.

[fluoridation]

If the company prefers to allow the theft to continue as long they get to press charges, instead of taking more immediate measures that would stop the theft outright, such as banning the person (which must be feasible if they're tracking the person by facial features), somehow I don't think it must be having much of an impact. Note that I'm not defending the thieves here. I'm just saying that this approach seems unnecessarily vindictive and not useful to solve the problem which, let's remember, is "people steal", not "thieves go unpunished".

[4ggr0]

> stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible.

you, I, and probably most people on HN have the privilege of seeing it this way. for others, it's sometimes not a moral question, but a question of survival or at least dignity.

[DaSHacka]

I know, how terrible the thieves are so hard-up they have to eat that pair of Jordans. Or those Milwaukee power tools. Oh my, what a terrible world...

[everly]

I’m not familiar with any stores that have Jordans that can be purchased via self checkout.

[4ggr0]

how easy the world is if you limit the examples to the ones which reinforce your way of seeing things.

[AngryData]

You realize goods can be exchanged for money right? Also tools can be used for jobs which earn money.