[danans]

> t’s a myth that petty shoplifting is something done by poor people. The people doing it are usually part of organised crime (that is not “hyperlocal”) and generally are doing better than actual poor people

There is not such a strong distinction. Organized crime groups often use poor people who have few alternatives as the pawns of their theft and fencing operations. People with other better options don't usually take up petty crime as a vocation.

[trollbridge]

I would say that many people with better options take up sophisticated crime as a vocation. Obviously poor and rich people choose vocations a little differently.

There is not overall any sign that poor people, as a whole, have increased criminality; other factors like culture are far stronger.

Punishing crime and preventing it (like shoplifting) helps poor people, too. Poor people do not benefit from stores closing, or having the stores closest to them have everything locked up.

[danans]

> There is not overall any sign that poor people, as a whole, have increased criminality; other factors like culture are far stronger.

"Criminality" is too broad a characterization. It covers both assault and petty theft. I never said the poor are more criminal as a group than any other group.

People in poverty are more likely to commit petty theft out of need. Similarly, people who are very wealthy are more likely to commit large scale tax evasion out of greed. Both are financial crimes, but they are not committed equally by both groups.

> Punishing crime and preventing it (like shoplifting) helps poor people, too.

Yes, and so does giving people in poverty a step up out of life circumstances that make them more likely to commit petty crimes (like shoplifting).

Similarly, punishing large scale financial crimes by the wealthy (something that has basically stopped of late) would benefit everyone, from the poor to the wealthy. In fact, punishment may be the only disincentive for financial crimes by the wealthy, since they don't want for anything else.