Talk:Shoplifting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Shop stealing

In the US, when there is both a ticket issued by the City Police for the crime of shoplifting that is cited as "stealing" and a civil demand for money by the retailer ----this looks like legalized stealing and extortion when both sanctions are applied at the same time against the suspect. In my opinion, first-offense shoplifting should be decriminalized and only the sanction of civil recovery should be available to the retailer for first offense shoplifting. Perhaps this was the intention of the Legislatures when they first passed these laws. If first offenders refused to pay the civil recovery, then retailers should be willing to ask the City Prosecutors to issue a summons to the offender and they should be responsible for prosecuting the matter in the courts with their probable cause evidence. Probably, it would be difficult to prosecute defendants criminally if there was no actual damage to the merchandise and they recovered the merchandise that was merchantable and could be sold after they refused to sell it to the suspect. Under the civil recovery statutes, the retailers' probable cause proof to demand civil recovery by letter would probably still suffice and the retailers would still not have to take suspects to the civil courts under the civil statutes.

Our commissioned police should not be available to respond to store security offices where first offenders are sitting quietly, waiting to be released, after they have surrendered the merchandise to the LP with an offer to pay for the merchandise. It is obvious that the cities have premeditated the ticketing of millions of suspects for stealing (larceny) and have premeditated the diversion of first-time ofenders from the courts or a plea bargain for a lesser offense that is not a "crime" under the law.

The lower courts of the cities are closed to any defense to a ticket for stealing and it is apparent that "shoplifting" tickets are common and a source of revenue for the cities as well as a source of income for those attorneys who work the lower courts of the cities. Ciry tickets for stealing work as a fulcrum to produce the prompt payment of civil demands for money from the retailers that are permitted under state statutes. The retailers are protected from lawsuits for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution because they do not have to join the probable cause complaint initiated by their city-licensed security personnel.

Could shoplifting be prosecuted in the courts as the completed crime of petit or grand larceny if the detainment is accomplished inside of the store premises? Or, is the surveillance and the arrest outside of the store necessary to prove the "intent" to steal and to provide the probable cause for the City Commissioned Police who then write city tickets or arrest the detained defendants for completed larcenies. Could the concept of this "special law", a Civil Recovery for Shoplifting, even when the merchandise is immediately recovered (surrendered by the suspect)in merchantable condition, be rationalized under the law if shoplifting had not been changed to a completed larceny under the law? As in Winona Ryder's case, under California law, do the city-lioensed security personnel always initiate both a civil recovery for the retailer and a criminal sanction for the people, or is this an arbitrary practice? Why was it necessary to showcase Winona Ryder in a jury trial. Why wasn't she offered a plea bargain as 5,000 other "shoplifters" were offered plea bargains by the LA Prosecutor.

This subsidy of Civil Recovery Statutes across the United States of America for the corporate retailers of America tends to taint the law and "procedure" to protect the retailers and their profits and this is advanced as serving "the public good." But, is the public good served by a practice that looks like legalized extortion when the lower city courts are closed to any defense against a ticket for shoplifting that is treated as a completed larceny by the courts?

Is it in the best interests of the public for the cities to premeditate the arrest of millions of first offenders who will be diverted from the courts one way or the other to avoid giving these first offenders a criminal record ----but who will be forced, in their own interests, to accept plea bargains or rehabilitation and sign releases for their arrests. The cities rationalize that this practice provides the deterrence of second attempts to steal and I'm sure it does, but shouldn't first attempts to steal be deterred and shouldn't retailers be required to use modern technology to protect their merchandise and get their merchandise paid for within the stores. Why is there no posted notice of the state authorized "civil recovery" and notice that "shoplifting" is the offense of larceny under State and Criminal Laws? When there is an incentive to arrest for profit as in the case of Civil Recovery for both the retailer and the City and the local Bar, isn't the outcome certain. Isn't this why shoplifting has not been deterred in society? Doesn't the present state of the law concerning shoplifting result in unequal treatment for the poor and disadvantaged in society?

Was Winona Ryder set up as an example to the people that shoplifting is prosecuted fairly under our laws? We notice that Winona Ryder was before the Los Angeles Court at the same time the State of California was appealing the "Three Strikes Case Concerning Shoplifting" to the United States Supreme Court, who eventually overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and ruled that it was not cruel and unusual punsishment to use "shoplifting" convinctions in the compostion of strikes for sentencing purposes. If Winona Ryder had been found innocent by the Los Angeles Court, would it have been politically feasible and possible for the United States Supreme Court to have reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Why did the Supreme Court agree to hear this appeal from California? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling did not strike down the Califnia Three-Strikes Law but only gave relief to particular defendants where the shoplifting strike seems to result in cruel and unusual punishment. While it appears that one has nothing to do with the other, the decision by the Supreme Court inadvertently protected all of the case law that has been made since the 70's that has rendered apprehended shoplifting the completed crime of larceny! ---And this decision inadvertenly protected the status quo of the Civil Recovery Statutes passed by the State Legislatures.

But, is this the will of the people? Or, is this the will of the corporate retailers who buy law and legislation from our elected officials? Is it possible in a democracy that defendants are serving "life sentences" because shoplifting is treated as a completed felony larceny that is counted in three strikes? It is my understanding that the six Video Tapes that Andrade was found guilty of stealing were not damaged and were returned to stock to be sold. The stolen merchandise of the retailers in ticketed shoplifting cases is generally photographed for evidence and logistics purposes and reasons and is not taken to the evidence room of the Police Stations until there is an actual trial in the court, except, of course, when there is an immediate arrest by the commissioned police.

CJKC


In Australia, the offical term has been "shop stealing" for the past couple of decades. It was felt that "shoplifting" just didn't sound criminal enough. — Hippietrail 12:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like something you could usefully add to the article, particularly if you can find the year it was changed or a reference. Then add a redirect link from shop stealing -- Solipsist 12:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised, I finally remembered to check in the Macquarie Dictionary yesterday (Australia's answer to the OED and Websters). There is no mention of this term! Yet it's common to encounter it in warning signs at shops and you'll probably hear it on the TV news or such now and then too. A Google search turns up a modest number of hits, notably almost all from .au domains. More research may be needed... — Hippietrail 06:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My impression is that "shop theft" is the "official" term with "shoplifting" an alternative. The VIC, NSW & SA courts use them [1] [2], as do the VIC police, at least, who charge offenders with "shop theft". A Google search of .au domains for "shop theft" and "shop stealing" gives a comparable number of hits. By just glancing down the list it looks like there are more .gov.au hits for theft. Perhaps there is some difference between states? --Tatty 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Shop stealing" on the Internet

[edit] Usenet

These are the earliest posts I can find for each form of the word using Google Groups:

  • shop-stealing: rec.games.hack - 22 Jul 1992 by Allen Halsell: [3]
  • shop-stealer's: rec.music.cd - 23 Mar 1992 by Brendan Jones: [4]
  • shopstealing: talk.politics.guns - 6 Jun 1994 by Peter Caffin: [5]
  • shop stealer: soc.culture.australian - 3 Jan 1996 by Kym Horsell: [6]
  • shop stealers: aus.politics - 6 May 1997 by Kym Horsell: [7]
  • shop-stealers: aus.tv - 24 May 2002 by Alex: [8] (This one even offers an opinion on the "new term").
  • shop steal: aus.services.emergency - 19 Feb 2004 by Solo: [9]

I've even found the the South Australian Police have the "radio code" 304 - Shop stealer: [10]

[edit] Google

A search for <shop-steal | shop-stealer | shop-stealers | shop-stealing> on Google got 1,760 results though quite a few will be false positives, two thirds of the first page of results are genuine uses of the term.

[edit] Co-occurring forms
  • <shop-steal> + any of the other terms: 13 hits
  • <shop-stealer> + any of the other terms: 13 hits
  • <shop-stealers> + any of the other terms: 15 hits
  • <shop-stealing> + any of the other terms: 34 hits

There are also quite a small number of hits for <shop-stole> and <shop-stolen>.

— Hippietrail 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dropped text

Dropped this comment:

(note: Strangely enough, most retailers still manage to reap record profits year after year....)

Ellsworth 17:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also dropped:

Other shoplifters steal on moral grounds, ie only from stores that have bad reputations for treating workers unfairly, questionable overseas labour practices, or big multinational corporations (Wal-Mart, etc.) that harm local community businesses. These people will often use the money they save from shoplifting in the big stores to support local businesses which cannot compete price-wise with multi-million dollar big-box chain stores.

This appears to be either trolling or patent nonsense, unless there is reliable information to the contrary. Ellsworth 20:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the second one? 66.32.71.39 03:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The second one is POV unless there is some reference to back it up. Regardless, it's highly loaded/inflammatory in the mere stating. One can mention "shoplifting on moral grounds" without wording it in such a way to promote one's agenda of dislike or hatred for particular companies. Bill Kramme 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
That section is basically an excuse for stealing. I added some text to balance it out and hopefully inject some reality. When someone steals from WalMart, it doesn't come out of the pockets of the Walton family -- no business owner is going to put up with that -- it comes out of the pockets of honest consumers who believe in paying for merchandise. If someone doesn't like WalMart, that's fine, but there are more constructive ways of expressing disapproval. Afalbrig 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, like that. Just kidding...that's actually deconstructive. Anyways, I'm going to change it to say that many argue that prices will go up. First of all, shoplifting loss is already figured into the budgets, and chances are, if the rates reduced to lower than they are (meaning the store made more money than it anticipated) some (such as myself) would argue that the majority of the difference would likely just be pocketed by the owners or invested into growth. It seems like it would be hard to tell what would and does really happen though. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
To expand a little, theft adds additional overhead, which has to get built into the prices. No store that just eats the losses is likely to stay open for very long. Business owners know better than that. So shoplifting doesn't strike a blow against a hated corporation and its shareholders. It's really just stealing from all the paying consumers, the little guy. That's not cool.
If somehow pilfering ended overnight, then there would be less overhead, and eventually prices would lower due to the usual competition, Adam Smith's invisible hand and all that. Large stores tend not to have high profit margins -- I understand that supermarkets typically have an average 2% markup on goods -- and it's the high volume that gives them the edge. A store that sets profit margins too high will lose business to the competition. Afalbrig 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you Afalbrig. Store's set prices to maximize profits. Not at lowest possible price while still covering losses. It's a common misconception due to a lack of critical thinking. To set the price of goods at anything other than the profit maximized price is either shooting oneself in the foot at the expense of profits, or an anti-competitive practice designed to take intentional losses to drive competitors out of a price war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruffy mcduffy (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sociological/Psychological aspects

Whilst reading over the recent reordering/rewording by an anon editor, it occured to me that this article is missing discussion of some of the common social and psychological aspects of shoplifting. In particular I am sure I've have heard several times that there is a phenomenom of shoplifting by depressed middle aged women. However, after a quick look for additional information to back this up, I came across this recent study, which concludes that whilst middle aged shoplifting probably can be associated with depression and loss, it is more or less evenly balanced between sexes. Other references also suggested that the attention seeking middle aged female shoplifter might be a myth.

Similarly, particularly amoungst teenagers, there may be an addiction to the adrenalin rush triggered by shoplifting (as with several other crimes).

In any case, I decided that this area was too complex for me to contribute a section on the basis of some light reading, so if anyone else feels better qualified please plug the hole. -- Solipsist 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I believe that such an addition would probably be open to POV standard issues I would interested in seeing such an addition to the article. Back when I was working at Dillard's a running joke in the store was that I used to stereotype all middle age blonde women as shoplifters. In fact I still have a case from Dillard's whom I've dubbed the (Yuppie Lady) that followed me accross company lines. From the Loss Prevention aspect I could easily provide some more insight and add it to the stub, but I'd like to hear from some additional users first.

There is no "psychological" issue with shoplifiting. It is a natural human response to the inhuman conditions of property and law.

Give me a break. Much shoplifting is a result of temptation, coupled with the feeling that one will not be caught.
I agree for the most part with the last statement. Most of us have walked into a store looking to buy something we need or want and we find the price just to be unappealing. Three things can happen at that point. Most normal people either suck it up and pay the price for the merchandise or just decline to purchase the item. The third person takes the item and steals it because their a cheap SOB and they don't think they'll get busted. With that last statement in mind, I can tell from over half a decade of retail loss prevention experience that most people don't get caught. Statistically speaking one out of every eleven people has shoplifted during the course of their life. My experience has been that I usually get ten merchandise recoveries before an arrest. So basically if you were to walk into a store and shoplift something my experience (which is by no means scientific) you stand a 1/11 chance of getting caught.
Those odds look good enough to me :P

[edit] Thwarting RFID tags

Not all underwear is suitable for concealing merchandise. eg t-shirts. I am unable to source the claim that non-aluminum metals are employed for this purpose. I am changing the paragraph to reflect this. Hermitian 00:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Colorado law referenced makes no mention whatsoever of underpants, but rather to "ANY TOOL, INSTRUMENT, MECHANISM, OR ARTICLE ADAPTED, DESIGNED, ENGINEERED, USED, OR OPERATED TO AVOID DETECTION BY A THEFT DETECTION DEVICE". I refer you to http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2001/sl.162.htm for the exact wording of the law. You appear to be seeking humour rather than accuracy here. Non-underwear metal-lined articles of clothing, such as pants and jackets, could clearly be effective in concealing RFID-tagged merchandise.
North Carolina G.S. 14-72.1(d1) specifically references the use of a metal other than aluminum in shielding RFID tagging: "(d1) Notwithstanding subsection (e) of this section, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by using a lead-lined or aluminum-lined bag, a lead-lined or aluminum-lined article of clothing, or a similar device to prevent the activation of any shoplifting or inventory control device is guilty of a Class H felony."
I am reverting this paragraph to the metal- and clothing-neutral version. Should you wish to return to your obvious attempt at humour, you need to come up with specific justification. Radak 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Shoplifting techniques have specific phrases associated with them, and the specific paragraphs on them should use these terms. As an example, there is the "baby stroller box" method. Although removing any bulky item from its carton, and substituting merchandise of approximately equal weight and much higher value, would be an example of the use of this method, "baby stroller box" is the title of the section. "Booster boxes" have many other names as well. It would not aid readers of Wikipedia in identifying the section on the baby stroller box method of shoplifting, if it were titled "oversized container contents substitution" or some other euphemism. It would not assist readers if the booster box section were titled "wrapped empty packages containing inconspicuous spring-loaded trap doors." In the media coverage which preceeded the enactment of the Colorado law, the term aluminum underwear specifically referring to aluminum underpants, was ubiquitously employed, and it became the de-facto name of this approach to shoplifting. While states passing laws criminalizing the wearing of aluminum undergarments were the subject of some levity in press accounts, I am not seeking humor in updating the shoplifting article to reflect this modern technical innovation.
Let's see if we can come to consensus on the title of this section, and hold a quick poll. Hermitian 01:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your assertion that popular short names for shoplifting methodologies are preferable to confusing extended descriptions, but I find little evidence to support your claim of ubiquity of this term. A quick Google search, filtering out comments on the Colorado law (since you claim the term's ubiquity predates said law), shows only 19 unique web matches and five unique Usenet matches for the phrase "aluminum underpants", and not a single one of them has anything to do with shoplifting. The phrase "aluminum underwear" appears to be somewhat more popular in general use, but very few of even these references are in relation to shoplifting. I believe that in the absence of any such ubiquitous term (and you certainly have not shown that one exists), the more general "RFID Shielding" (or something similar) is the most appropriate section title until such time as some other phrase has obviously enterted the vernacular. Radak 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for being unclear. By "preceeding the enactment of the Colorado law" I meant after the law was proposed, but prior to it going into effect. The "aluminum underwear" label for metallic RFID shielding became a catch phrase during the press coverage about the proposed law before it was applicable. In this context, you will find over 300 Google hits. "Enactment" was of course the wrong word to use here, Perhaps you know of a analagous word which refers to the date a law goes into effect? You may change your vote in light of this additional information, if you wish.Hermitian 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Try actually reading your Google hits instead of just counting them. Of the 114 *unique* hits for "aluminum underwear", 79 have nothing to do with shoplifting, 28 directly concern the Colorado law, and only seven generally concern shoplifting, not specifically in reference to the Colorado law. Of the 35 unique hits for "aluminum underpants", 18 have nothing to do with shoplifting, 17 reference the Colorado law, and zero reference shoplifting in general. It is obvious from these Google results that the use of the phrase in either form did gain some popularity surrounding the passage of the Colorado law, but disappeared shortly thereafter and did not fall into the general vernacular. Either form is therefore not ubiquitous and is inappropriate for this section title. Radak 03:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Aluminum underwear is not newsworthy in the absence of ongoing public discussion of laws about it, or people arrested for using it. You correctly note that you cannot find Google hits on the term in the context of shoplifting unassociated with laws being passed against it. But since I can't remember having seen any recent wireservice stories on people arrested for wearing it, I wonder if the lack of the term appearing on the Internet since the laws were passed has less to do with it disappearing as a term for the activity, and more to do with the fact that stories of national interest about people engaging in the prohibited behavior are not very numerous. In light of that, please feel free to revise your "No" vote. Hermitian 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Google indexes all varieties on content on the Internet, not just wire service stories (and in fact, the vast majority of the spike in use of these terms surrounding the passage of the law had nothing to do with wire service stories). First you misrepresented Google numbers to try to support your claim, and now you're claiming Google numbers are not representative now that you see that they do not, in fact, support your claim. Your line of reasoning is becoming too weak to sustain. It's time for you to pick up and choose another article to bother. Radak 04:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of all the flavors of content indexed by Google. I just don't see why you think the Internet would be filled with material related to aluminum underwear outside the context of the discussion of proposed laws, in the total absence of people being arrested in retail establishments wearing aluminum undershorts. The use of the term during the press coverage of the Colorado law is more than sufficient to establish it as the preferred colloquialism for lower body RFID shielding. Were you to sheathe your loins in Reynolds Wrap, and attempt to emerge from your local Tower Records with your pants bulging obscenely with unpurchased DVDs, I have no doubt that the term "aluminum underwear" would figure prominently in the subsequent press coverage of your plea bargain and lengthy probation. You need to look beyond quibbling over minutia, and recognize that "aluminum underwear" is the preferred term for self-constructed wearable radio frequency shielding for shoplifting applications.Hermitian 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to quibble endlessly with you. My point has been made cogently and concisely for anyone who cares to read it and vote in the poll. Radak 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Your "point" is that I added a section to the shoplifting section titled "aluminum underwear," and you decided to fight to the death to name it something else, despite the fact that no consensus existed that there was anything wrong with it, because you know I find your gratuitous little edits of my Wikipedia contributions annoying, and it gives you an opportunity to needle me while appearing to be a completely innocent party. Aside from the massive meatpuppetry in the "no" section, and one or two people who joined the pile-on, you are a loud chorus of one. If a phrase is succinct, and instantly communicates its idea to someone who reads it, it doesn't matter if it's also funny. Many coined phrases for things are slightly amusing or burlesque, which is one way the public is assisted to remember them. I'm conceding the "no" vote to you and "moving on." Thank-you for wasting my time (again).Hermitian 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with it was really (and you know this) that it was a specific attempt to laugh at the expense of a specific person. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to bring your inside jokes, particularly those that you know to be hurtful to others. If you have any desire to discuss this further, it should probably be taken to your talk page or mine, since it's way off-topic for this one. Radak 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Poll on Title of RFID Shielding Section

Is "Aluminum Underwear" or a similar phrase the right title for this form of shoplifting behavior?

Yes

  1. Yes. Hermitian 01:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Corax 01:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No

  1. No. (See above.) Radak 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. No. HeadNun 02:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. No. Can annyone demonstrate the supposed ubiquity of this term? Tomyumgoong 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. No. This poll is a waste of time and resources. You all know each other, and me, and you know underpants are not actually made of aluminum. I have submitted a more appropriate term, if you insist on having anything at all. Now grow up. --66.142.172.49 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. No. Ridiculous. [User:72.56.86.44 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)]
  6. no..this is stupid. why are you guy's arguing about this 192.122.209.42 04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia policy, I'm not counting votes by newly minted users whose only action on Wikipedia has been to vote in this poll. This isn't a contest to see how many of your IRC friends you can get to stuff the ballot box for you. Hermitian 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom intro paragraph

I find the bottom intro paragraph really cumbersome and out of place. I think we could condense it down into 2 or 3 sentences, and attach it to the 2nd paragraph where types of shoplifters are described. What does everyone think? Castlecraver 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

There are three different articles that someone could want when they type in Shoplifting. I realise that the article here links to the Straw album "Shoplifting" but there is also a band "Shoplifting" who don't yet have a Wikipedia entry. However, in the Hannah Blilie article, there is mention of the band Shoplifting, which links to this page on Shoplifting meaning theft. I wouldn't mind creating the article on Shoplifting (Band) but I'm having difficulty understanding how I should make the disambiguation page work. If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated.


- there is a shoplifting (band) article, but even a search for "shoplifting" won't lead to any kind of disambiguation on it. i found it through google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoplifting_(band) the disambiguation on this article definitely needs work, but i have no idea how to do it either. somebody help? 71.217.99.101 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC) <-- this was me, i forgot to sign in Glitterglue 10:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mail it Out Technique?

There was a rather inventive technique that I heard about a few months ago that involved the stores with the in-store shipping counters.

Basically, you'd get a box, load it with merchandise and mail it out of the store. It'd be brilliant if it worked. Thought it might deserve an addition to this very informative article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.191.115 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Too much information?

Does it not worry anybody that this page gives too much information on how to steal, swindle, and all that stuff? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was above this.

Seems like a how-to manual to me also.


I disagree, it shows the most common methods of shoplifting, completely valid. ˜˜˜˜

I am very disappointed that someone removed the methods of shoplifting, it is definitely completely valid. People may assume that shoplifters just do simple techniques instead of the many complicated methods used by shoplifters. Whoever deleted all that should consider themselves a vandal.

The article on common methods of shoplifting should be part of this article. Both are incomplete by themselves. They should be merged. Rlsheehan May 21, 2007

[edit] Stereotypes of Shoplifters... Leading To Ageism.

I was wondering if I should add a bit about many shops' wrong presumption that young people are all shoplifters. As a sixteen year old, I constantly found myself being watched and discriminated against because they think i'll lift something. A few larger Tesco stores in the UK for example, only let schoolkids in in very small amounts, and make all the kids take a basket because "they can't watch them all."

And my cousin, as a teenage male, found himself being constantly watched when he entered any shops.

So, should the issue of ageism be pointed out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TetrisRock (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually there is statistical evidence that shows that the younger you are the more prone you are to committ any crime, not just shoplifting. As a person ages they tend to develop ties and relationships that lessen the incentives to committ crimes and thus they "age out." This is basic crux of the aging of theory of criminal activity. From my standpoint as a Loss Prevention Manager who has dealt with shoplifters almost a decade about 75% of the people are caught have been somewhere between the ages of 12 to 28 years of age. This isn't to say that old people don't steal or singling out young people for observation is right, but it is a profiling practice that has been effective for many retailers.

Tom Fearer May 16 2007

[edit] Bring back methods of shoplifting

I feel the methods of shoplifting should be included in this article. If not it should have its own page Daz 90 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

User:Scruffy McDuffy —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read what Wikipedia is not, I see no reason that shoplifting methods should be disincluded from this article insofar as they are not presented as a how-to or guidebook. To me, its removal represents a censorship driven by an individual's fear of shoplifting, which is unfair to the democratic nature of Wikipedia. Bring it back. As a matter of fact, it is absolute garbage to list anti-theft options without describing the other side of the issue. If shoplifting methods is to be removed, so should shoplifting prevention methods. Legianon (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Er

I'm sorry, but since when did Wikipedia become an outlet for people to rant about how they want to stick it to the man by stealing stuff? I mean, the article practically portrays shoplifting as a legitimate form of political protest! I mean, read this:

Therefore it is seen as far more effective, resulting in direct financial losses to the particular shop rather than just denying it profit, it also means that the shoplifter is still able to obtain the products for their benefit.

Yeah, great! And not a single mention is made of any other cost, to anyone, beyond a vague threat of "higher prices". I seriously, honestly cannot believe that someone tried to a) try and push theft as a moral high ground and then b) push that view via a hideously POV page on Wikipedia! -- 81.110.165.5 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tidied up

Its a bit better now. Though some sources would be nice. The interminable 'How to' section has been chopped. It was one of the worst things I've ever seen in a Wikipedia article. All the same, someone above suggested a separate article for the 'How to' section - that might not be a bad idea. In any case, it dont belong here. Marcus22 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

14. I think this article is deficient because there is no coverage of BOTH the criminal and the civil sanctions for shoplifting and how the cities use the two together to give the subsidy of "civil recovery" and "civil demand letters" as granted by the States to the corporate retailers. Apparently, while the States are changing their civil recovery statutes, it still remains possible for the cities to arrest/ticket and divert "first offenders" as long as they are not prosecuted for "theft" (misdemeanor or felony larceny) after they pay a civil recovery to the retailer, but only up until a certain dollar amount. ($500 under the Tennessee Statute) There is no information on the Internet about how the subsidy of civil demand cash is taxed under State and Federal laws. Civil Demand Associates, inc. of California, in their first article posted on the Internet indicated that some of the Attorney Generals of the States had indicated that the civil demand income could be directed directly to the costs for Security Personnel, etc.. which is a further subsidy of the corporate retailers.

The Civil Demands authorized under State statutes have given the Retailers an incentive to arrest for profit and it is my opinion and the opinion of others in free nations that governments should not be in the business of arresting for profit or assisting large corporate interests to arrest for profit under the guise that the "scheme" somehow serves the greater good by lowering the cost of merchandise to the public. Where is the proof that this deterrence lowers the cost of merchandise to the public?

The current article in Wikipedia that is titled "shoplifting" is incomplete and misleading in service of the status quo.

CJKC --31 Jan 08 ll:12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJKC (talk • contribs) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ward ---You removed my comments that indicated that city-licensed retail security personnel who are licensed with limited powers of arrest, and who arrest outside of store premises, have the authority under the law to use REASONABLE force to detain suspected shoplifters who have carred merchandise pass final checkouts without paying for the merchandise. However, they are NOT required to warn the suspects whom they detain that they have any rights to remain silent when they detain them, even though they have permitted the suspects to pass final checkouts to provide the proof for the "probable cause and on view" ticket or arrest of the suspected shoplifter by the city commissioned police for a completed larceny.

The concept of civil recovery and civil demands for damages for merchandise that is immediately surrendered in merchantable condition would not be feasible unless the suspects can be charged for completed larcenies (stealing) by the city police after the merchandise has been carried past final checkout points and outside of store premises. The city courts are closed to any defense against a ticket for "stealing" and the cost of a defense to a charge of larceny in the state courts in a trial de nova, after defendants are found guilty in the city courts, is beyond the capability of most citizens. Those defendants who consult attorneys are told that it is in their best interests to plea bargain with the City because the Judge finds everyone technically guilty of larceny if they have carred merchandise past the final checkouts without paying for the merchandise.

The judiciary does not address the premise of the city giving retail loss-prevention personnel limited powers of arrest that they use only for the purpose of "arrest" outside of the store while keeping the suspect under constant surveillance --- but not for the purpose of preventing the offense of "theft" by stopping the "attempt to steal" within the store. The retailers have been given the incentive to arrest for profit and have been relieved of the obligation to use their security personnel, their paid agents, to prevent thefts within the stores. Obviously, Commissioned Police and Security Guards wear uniforms and badges to deter crimes but retail security act as secret police who are commissioned by the cities to "catch" shoplifters outside of the stores for the purpose of charging them with completed larcenies and demanding out-of-court CIVIL money damages under Civil Recovery Statutes.

Obviously, it isn't a coincidence that the city shoplifting ordinances are ignored and discarded and that shoplifting is now ticketed and charged as "larceny" in the lower city courts. Obviously, the civil recovery statutes would not look feasible if shoplifting was treated as an inchoate offense by the courts, as it was for over 100 years in the law of our great nation.

This subsidy for the Corporate retailers has cost us too much in the TAINTING of our lowest and our highest courts.

The retailers have been given the incentive to arrest for profit and they do. The least you can do is to tell the truth in your Wikipedia Shoplifting Article. A city-licensed security guard does have the legal right to use reasonable force to detain shoplifting suspects and this is why so many suspected shoplifters and security guards are being injured or killed outside on the sidewalks or in the parking lots of US Retail Stores.

CJKC -16:28 --3/1/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.180.54 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Carol, let me insert a comment from another editor on another article's talk page:
It appears that you are the author of Carol, Ripoff Report, Kansas City, Missouri 2006-04-28 . In other words, you are trying to use Wikipedia for making a point. Please read the policy and understand why that is incompatible with what wp is about and why it simply won't work.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going through this with you over and over. You have been given an unbelievable amount of tolerance, help, and advice. You have an axe to grind, and Wikipedia is not the place to do it. If you don't wish to follow Wikipedia's policies about verification, reliable sources, and citations, you are not welcome on Wikipedia. That's my final word on the matter. Ward3001 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I just gave the article the NPOV tag. Some things just don't add up and I think that, as has been said before, someone is seriously trying to push his political agenda here. Especially the second paragraph of the "Motives and reasons" section is atrocious. I don't know who came up with the ridiculous idea of "ethical shoplifting," but that's sure as hell not a legal term. Further cleanup required. If you disagree or have suggestions, write it in here. --84.186.227.56 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think if there are no substantive changes to the last paragragh of Motives in a couple of weeks, it should be deleted as unsourced. And I wish someone could find that journal article on benzodiazepines. It's seems rather far-fetched to me. I did some checking and found that that sentence was added by Hobblehobble (talk · contribs), who has a significant history of vandalism and hasn't edited in over a year. So perhaps we should delete the sentence until or unless someone can find the journal article and explain things a little more clearly. Ward3001 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article is POV, but from the corporate point of view. Most of the article puts a serious moral judgement on shoplifting. It seems to me that 84.186.227.56 sees ethical shoplifting as a "ridiculous idea" but this is more of a knee-jerk reaction than a considered and academic editorial comment.134.148.5.118 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)