3 ms·

That sounds like a crime. Maybe prosecute that instead of get rid of a program that appears to have some demonstrable up sides.

lurr 9y ago
Does this program have upsides? Saves time and money at the cost of trampling on people's rights is not an upside. Are these people being given lawyers? Are they being told what their rights are? Do they have an accurate understanding of the punishment they face if they tell walmart no?
shkkmo 9y ago
It's all a crime (at least in California). It's called 'extortion'. The program certainly has upsides for the for-profit company running the program and for the for-profit store receiving 'restitution' from participants. However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. If this program were truly about helping these people, it would be run by a non-profit and funded by the stores and/or the police departments rather than by extorting people.
- loeg 9y ago
  > However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500. And whether you are convicted or not, your mugshot may be public forever, with long-lasting potential economic impacts. If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    > Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500 Do you have any evidence or data? Or is this just hand waving? The article doesn't even try to show that it is beneficial to participants. I've been through the legal system exactly once. I pled guilty and got time served. It cost me exactly $0 and about 24hrs of my life. The article itself says that first-time offenders rarely get prosecuted. > If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside. No, this just shows that the extortion is effective, not that complying with the extortion is in your best interests.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    "If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside." I don't think it does. We'd have to know what information they are given, and what kind of pressure they are put under to decide if it's coercion or not.
  - grkvlt 9y ago
    Where are these people (apparently shoplifters who are too poor to purchase goods, and are therefore stealing them) getting the money to pay for these 'education' courses, in the first place?
- tomohawk 9y ago
  I'll go as far to agree that it is California extortion, whatever that is. How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? The up side in this case is that the shoplifters (who are now somehow the victims in your narrative) are allowed an alternative course of action that does not involve a criminal record or jail time. Any system, to be viable, needs a viable economic model. In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. There's nothing inherently morally superior about a non-profit. In fact, many non-profits are downright despicable. That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you.
  - lurr 9y ago
    That's absolutely extortion too and the way that prosecutors rob people of their day in court by saying plea bargain or excessive punishment is similarly disgusting. You might have guessed I have a pretty low view of the US criminal justice system.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    > How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? If a prosecutor demands money in exchange for not prosecuting you, that is extortion. Prosecutors having discretion does not make it extortion unless something is demanded in return for not prosecuting. (One might make a case that the current practice of soliciting plea deals are a form of extortion, but that is a whole other discussion.) > In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. Funding the system as they do creates incentives for abuse. While non-profits can be abused like for profits, there are more legal protections to limit their behavior and ability to generate profit from shady behavior. > That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you. I don't get your point. Yes, only the government is allowed to extort you and coerce your actions with force and there are strong legal limits to the ways in which we allow government to do that.

lurr 9y ago

Does this program have upsides? Saves time and money at the cost of trampling on people's rights is not an upside. Are these people being given lawyers? Are they being told what their rights are? Do they have an accurate understanding of the punishment they face if they tell walmart no?

shkkmo 9y ago

It's all a crime (at least in California). It's called 'extortion'. The program certainly has upsides for the for-profit company running the program and for the for-profit store receiving 'restitution' from participants. However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. If this program were truly about helping these people, it would be run by a non-profit and funded by the stores and/or the police departments rather than by extorting people.

loeg 9y ago
> However, please, demonstrate the the people being extorted have an up side in this. Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500. And whether you are convicted or not, your mugshot may be public forever, with long-lasting potential economic impacts. If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  > Having to go through the legal system as a criminal defendant can easily exceed $300-500 Do you have any evidence or data? Or is this just hand waving? The article doesn't even try to show that it is beneficial to participants. I've been through the legal system exactly once. I pled guilty and got time served. It cost me exactly $0 and about 24hrs of my life. The article itself says that first-time offenders rarely get prosecuted. > If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside. No, this just shows that the extortion is effective, not that complying with the extortion is in your best interests.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "If there wasn't an upside, people wouldn't pay. 90% of suspects paying shows that the suspects think there is an upside." I don't think it does. We'd have to know what information they are given, and what kind of pressure they are put under to decide if it's coercion or not.
- grkvlt 9y ago
  Where are these people (apparently shoplifters who are too poor to purchase goods, and are therefore stealing them) getting the money to pay for these 'education' courses, in the first place?
tomohawk 9y ago
I'll go as far to agree that it is California extortion, whatever that is. How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? The up side in this case is that the shoplifters (who are now somehow the victims in your narrative) are allowed an alternative course of action that does not involve a criminal record or jail time. Any system, to be viable, needs a viable economic model. In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. There's nothing inherently morally superior about a non-profit. In fact, many non-profits are downright despicable. That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you.
- lurr 9y ago
  That's absolutely extortion too and the way that prosecutors rob people of their day in court by saying plea bargain or excessive punishment is similarly disgusting. You might have guessed I have a pretty low view of the US criminal justice system.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  > How is it not extortion that a government prosecutor can exercise discretion and power over people based on their political leanings? If a prosecutor demands money in exchange for not prosecuting you, that is extortion. Prosecutors having discretion does not make it extortion unless something is demanded in return for not prosecuting. (One might make a case that the current practice of soliciting plea deals are a form of extortion, but that is a whole other discussion.) > In this case, funding the system as they do also has a deterrent and educational use. Funding the system as they do creates incentives for abuse. While non-profits can be abused like for profits, there are more legal protections to limit their behavior and ability to generate profit from shady behavior. > That government prosecutor is also part of an economic system. That system uses coercion. If you don't pay your taxes - guess what? That same prosecutor may be involved in incarcerating you. I don't get your point. Yes, only the government is allowed to extort you and coerce your actions with force and there are strong legal limits to the ways in which we allow government to do that.