3 ms·
Would this be as controversial if they money went to a third-party (i.e., not a Wal-Mart-run) charity? The idea is something good—keeping low-level, non-violen
by barsonme 9y ago
Would this be as controversial if they money went to a third-party (i.e., not a Wal-Mart-run) charity?
The idea is something good—keeping low-level, non-violent offenders out of the legal system and saving taxpayer dollars. But it does seem to fit the bill for extortion: Wal-Mart protecting the shoplifter from the government in exchange for money.
I wonder if there's a way to get the best of both worlds?
- lurr 9y ago> The idea is something good—keeping low-level, non-violent offenders out of the legal system by turning a corporation into the legal system. This is an awful idea.
- menacingly 9y agoYeah. I'm sure, since humans in general were involved, it was not altruistically designed. However, Walmart's scale probably means that they're more interested in reducing the instance of shoplifting as a trend, rather than bilking some individual for an amount they've already wasted talking to them.
- shkkmo 9y ago> I wonder if there's a way to get the best of both worlds? A non-profit first-offender education program funded by the police department and/or stores that doesn't require payment by participants would not be extortion and would have the same positive effects without the same incentives for abuse.
- dotancohen 9y agoWhy was this insightful comment downvoted?
- barsonme 9y agoYou are aware what website you're on, right? ;)
- dotancohen 9y agoCertainly not that one with stuff that matters!
- msla 9y agoIt wasn't.