4 ms·

It is creating crime which otherwise may not have existed. Maybe it's a small number of violators (do you have a citaton?) or maybe it's just a few opportunist

It is creating crime which otherwise may not have existed. Maybe it's a small number of violators (do you have a citaton?) or maybe it's just a few opportunistic kids. I'd really need to see a cost/benefit analysis (not just monetary but social too).

kodablah 8y ago
> It is creating crime which otherwise may not have existed There is nuance here. While I am traditionally against entrapment, I don't believe this crosses that line. If the police were surreptitiously encouraging the theft it might be different. > I'd really need to see a cost/benefit analysis It's a bit hard to quantify peace of mind or be able to correlate changes in theft counts due to sample size issues and the myriad of other reasons why theft counts may change.
- batiudrami 8y ago
  I mean I'm for it if there's suspicion of a single offender. But in that case they could probably monitor the houses that they hit regularly and catch them in the act. This feels more like a broad net to attempt to bump some statistics.
briandear 8y ago
They aren’t just stealing dummy packages though. If a worker would steal a dummy package, they would steal a “real” package. And those loses mean we all pay more for stuff. Theft, even petty stuff like shoplifting means everything costs more — and that’s regressive; poor people would be disproportionately affected by increased costs due to theft.
gojomo 8y ago
A sting which leaves typical, well-tracked target property in known problem locations isn't really manufacturing extra crime. (For example, it's not like the active entrapment of offering someone money, or verbal encouragement, to commit a criminal act they wouldn't have thought of themselves.) It instead captures existing roving criminal intent – perhaps redirecting it from a less-ready victim. And when the bait is taken, an actual crime occurs – in destruction or taking of another's property. And often, when a bust is made in relation to a single such crime – such as by tracking the stolen item back to the thief's staging areas or accomplices – evidence of other similar crimes is found as well.
Veen 8y ago
By that standard, when the homeowners leave packages outside after delivery they’re also “creating crime”. It’s perfectly legal and ethical to leave a package outside. What’s not ethical or legal is stealing other people’s property. The criminals are the ones creating crime, not the people trying to catch the criminals.

kodablah 8y ago

> It is creating crime which otherwise may not have existed There is nuance here. While I am traditionally against entrapment, I don't believe this crosses that line. If the police were surreptitiously encouraging the theft it might be different. > I'd really need to see a cost/benefit analysis It's a bit hard to quantify peace of mind or be able to correlate changes in theft counts due to sample size issues and the myriad of other reasons why theft counts may change.

batiudrami 8y ago
I mean I'm for it if there's suspicion of a single offender. But in that case they could probably monitor the houses that they hit regularly and catch them in the act. This feels more like a broad net to attempt to bump some statistics.

briandear 8y ago

They aren’t just stealing dummy packages though. If a worker would steal a dummy package, they would steal a “real” package. And those loses mean we all pay more for stuff. Theft, even petty stuff like shoplifting means everything costs more — and that’s regressive; poor people would be disproportionately affected by increased costs due to theft.

gojomo 8y ago

A sting which leaves typical, well-tracked target property in known problem locations isn't really manufacturing extra crime. (For example, it's not like the active entrapment of offering someone money, or verbal encouragement, to commit a criminal act they wouldn't have thought of themselves.) It instead captures existing roving criminal intent – perhaps redirecting it from a less-ready victim. And when the bait is taken, an actual crime occurs – in destruction or taking of another's property. And often, when a bust is made in relation to a single such crime – such as by tracking the stolen item back to the thief's staging areas or accomplices – evidence of other similar crimes is found as well.

Veen 8y ago

By that standard, when the homeowners leave packages outside after delivery they’re also “creating crime”. It’s perfectly legal and ethical to leave a package outside. What’s not ethical or legal is stealing other people’s property. The criminals are the ones creating crime, not the people trying to catch the criminals.