3 ms·

I'm on the fence. It's always interesting when a victim has a say in wether a crime gets prosecuted, which often leads to a situation where said victim may use

I'm on the fence. It's always interesting when a victim has a say in wether a crime gets prosecuted, which often leads to a situation where said victim may use that power to encourage an outcome that is preferable to both them and the perpetrator than letting the justice system handle it in typical fashion. I'd prefer if home break-ins don't get handled in a "Pay me $x and watch this video or we'll be forced to prosecute" BC while that may be better for both parties, it's likely worse for the rest of society. Not sure how I feel about petty theft being handled this way.

bb88 9y ago
You have a good point on the home breakins. But I think it's the way Walmart is doing it that's the problem. Walmart should just get one choice, either a criminal charge or a civil agreement. They can't be allowed to threaten both.
- drewmol 9y ago
  Hmmm... I don't know how it should be handled, but trying to prevent Walmart from taking this couse of action seems like it would be difficult to enforce within the constrainst of our legal system. Maybe a blanket policy that if you attempt to blackmail/extort/coerse someone into participating in some arrangement of alternative justice (outside the legal system) by using the threat of prosecution, you lose your legal standing as a victim, and therefore your ability to enforce prosecution? Let's say I was raped, and then attempt to extort money from the rapist in leiu of filing charges, I certainly think I would lose some credibility as a victim, and it's unfair to society who deserves knowledge of the potential threat, at minimum. It's important to recognize that the law someone violates is a crime against society as a whole, not just a crime against the particular victim. In this situation, the law is against shoplifting in general (society as a whole can be the victim), not against shoplifting FROM Walmart, so we should be careful to not let Walmart deprive society of our ability to enforce the agreed upon consequences.

bb88 9y ago

You have a good point on the home breakins. But I think it's the way Walmart is doing it that's the problem. Walmart should just get one choice, either a criminal charge or a civil agreement. They can't be allowed to threaten both.

drewmol 9y ago
Hmmm... I don't know how it should be handled, but trying to prevent Walmart from taking this couse of action seems like it would be difficult to enforce within the constrainst of our legal system. Maybe a blanket policy that if you attempt to blackmail/extort/coerse someone into participating in some arrangement of alternative justice (outside the legal system) by using the threat of prosecution, you lose your legal standing as a victim, and therefore your ability to enforce prosecution? Let's say I was raped, and then attempt to extort money from the rapist in leiu of filing charges, I certainly think I would lose some credibility as a victim, and it's unfair to society who deserves knowledge of the potential threat, at minimum. It's important to recognize that the law someone violates is a crime against society as a whole, not just a crime against the particular victim. In this situation, the law is against shoplifting in general (society as a whole can be the victim), not against shoplifting FROM Walmart, so we should be careful to not let Walmart deprive society of our ability to enforce the agreed upon consequences.