I see what you are saying Val, and yes excon, I do tend to see the good in people. May eventually be my downfall, but I believe everyone has good in them somewhere.

Now, I am talking about the people who are caught on videotape and the people who are witnessed by store security. They are brought into the office and questioned, they confess. What is wrong with offering them a fine rather than court or jail time? The fine can be outrageous if the state law allows it. But it would lower court dockets and clear our jails for more serious offenses.

Maybe I am still missing something. Maybe I am still a little naïve when it comes to this area of law. Well, I know I am naïve in this area. Just trying to learn something new.

Janine, law is complicated because its open to interpretation just as is all language and human behavior. In the case of law, it's especially important to be agreeing to what it means and applying the rules consistently (the main job of courts and judges, by the way) Its why new precedents are particularly twitchy. If you allow this, then what next on the same principle? In order to be fair, the privilege of circumventing the court system needs to be available to everyone who fulfills the same basic conditions that you outlined. Can you see where that goes? Some of this can be like pulling a thread in a woven fabric with far reaching effects.

I don't think you realise how ambiguous recorded theft can be even on tape. Even if it is clear theft, do we have one legally binding procedure for the documented guilty and another for the ambiguosly guilty to be fairly applied by a source with no monitoring? That is what you are suggesting. Even the courts monitor the courts.

I tell you, it reminds me of what I see going on in the local AA here. They are ignoring the AA Traditions and will do so to their peril. The Tradtions have built-in safe guards that were created out of painful experiences. And because the people now don't bother to look back and understand, they throw stuff (rules, principles, guidleines) out like they are cleaning out the freakin' attic. Oy. It will cost lives, if it hasn't already because it will impact AA's ability to be as effective as it once was -- I see evidence of that all over the place. It's the same monster killing Excon's (and all of ours) precious constitution -- contempt prior to investigation. This may be the Age of Information but it will turn into the Age of Misinformation if people don't start looking back over it all and doing their homework so they really understand! Okay, PUFF PUFF rant over LOL

I understand how law works as I was in the legal field for over 10 years, Med/mal, products liability, as well as insurace fraud, to be exact, never criminal. Maybe I am just reading too much into it, or just seeing too much good in people.

I was just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Maybe I am just reading too much into it, or just seeing too much good in people.

---

Hello again, J:

No, you're not seeing TOO much good in people. I think it's a great attitude to have. And, I think you're right too. Most people are good, honest, and moral. Most people don't have contraband, so they don't NEED the Fourth Amendment. Most people don't speak radically, so they don't NEED the First Amendment – and so on….

The Constitution wasn't written to protect us from most people. It was written to protect us from those very few amongst us, who are the bad guys. And, some bad guys are pretty bad.

Sure, MOST (?) corporations would only fine the people who actually did something... (Although, I just don't want to TRUST that they will.) But the bad guys (who run a few corporations) are going to shake down their customers, guilty or not, many of whom will pay through the nose instead of having the cops called on them. It's extortion, it's blackmail, it's RICO – it's bad!

Anytime you give over the administration of justice to private parties, these things will happen. That is why every one of us is GUARANTEED due process. If you're ever caught in a situation like that, you're going to NEED the Fifth Amendment.

Our founders were sooooo smart!

excon

Okay, I am beginning to understand. But just beginning. I have a long way to go, but I love to learn new things.

So if the state you live in had this kind of bill introduced to their respective legislature, how would you present the arguments against this? If this were to become a law, what safeguards would you demand to be in the writing? What you require of the stores when there is a shoplifting?

I don't want to hijack the thread but this is inline with the subject: if that nice lady at WalMart wants to check your receipt just say "No, thank you." and keep on walking.

Here's is a article that discusses the point:
Black & White, Birmingham's City Paper

And here's the spirited discussion on Digg.com about it:
Digg - Best Buy: "Sir we need to see your receipt" You: "Um, no you don't"

I like things as simple as possible because they frequently work best there - a principle the American culture has largely forgotten lately. I would attempt to block it entirely on a basis of motive. If the court system is so "broken" that we are resorting to regulating off bits and pieces of it to private concerns, then lets look at all the solutions possible for remedying that, not just one. In other words, I would ask that they answer to the why of this and insist it be plausible and fair. I don't think they can make that argument, frankly.

It is a similar argument I made with Immigation laws.
When the laws we already have aren't being enforced, why make more of them?
And if they aren't able to be enforced, let's change them to something that can be-- preferably, again, to something simple.

Here's an interesting twist for you all to consider.
You have ONLY committed theft (shoplifting) once you have LEFT the store.
Just because you choose to fill your pockets with product, doesn't mean you have the intention to steal them. This only occurs once you leave.
So having all these employees approach you before you leave the store and assuse you of theft is illegal ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Here's an interesting twist for you all to consider.
You have ONLY commited theft (shoplifting) once you have LEFT the store.
Just beacuse you choose to fill your pockets with product, doesn't mean you have the intention to steal them. This only occurs once you leave.
So having all these employees approach you before you leave the store and assuse you of theft is illegal ;)

---

Ah, interesting point. I have never shoplifted in the classical sense (not my thing, did other bad things instead LOL) However once I took a rolled up rug, quite large, without paying for it. I stood at the counter waiting too long to pay while the clerks talked in the back. I made eye contact, I called out for help, I announced I was leaving. They giggled so I picked up the rug and left! :eek:

I was fullly prepared to pay them for it out in the parking lot. Waited several more minutes standing outside my car with the rug and when nothing occurred, drove off. True story. I can be somewhat of a civil disobedient sort and was very prepared to end up standing in front of a judge, telling him/her about this event and take what comes.

I wanted the rug, knew of no other place to purchase it and had I had the exact change, I would have left it on the counter as I have done so a few other times with confidence it was okay to do that from the clerk's gesture.

So while it was risky transaction, was it still shoplifting? And how does this differ from the fine? Could not the fine be viewed as a like a scratch off card-- the price for what you want may be a lot or it may be free! WOW how fun! Hey, all you have to do is steal stuff worth more than the fine and get away with it more than half the time and you got yourself a nice fleamarket or eBay business.

Where I come from, shoplifting is a punishable crime, and I will say if 'unwarranted', but... if the shoplifting was done for groceries, or such, then there is leniency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

Where I come from, shoplifting is a punishable crime, and I will say if 'unwarranted', but.....if the shoplifting was done for groceries, or such, then there is leniency.

---

Oh now that reminds me of an old joke I will paraphrase badly no doubt. A man who was really sick of his wife's unnecessary shoplifting listened while the judge ask her what she took. She answered two steaks and a bag of potatoes. So the judge stated he was sentencing her to fourteen days of jail based on the two steaks added together with the dozen potatoes and hoped she would learn her lesson. The man interrupted, waving his hand wildly. "Yes, what is it?" asked the judge. The man answered, "She also took a can of peas, Your Honor!" :rolleyes: