3 ms·
> isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregators that sell goods from individual shop lifters? Quite right, and penetrating this "I dunno" defense is pa
by ericbarrett 5y ago
> isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregators that sell goods from individual shop lifters?
Quite right, and penetrating this "I dunno" defense is part of building a criminal case against the high-level traffickers. It's the job of the District Attorney (local), the Attorney General (state), and their teams of investigators; that is, the detectives. To do this they can surveil, pressure arrestees for lower-level crimes, penetrate organizations with undercover agents, and even tap phones and computers—pretty much anything you've seen in an American T.V. show, which is often dramatized but not always as far from the truth as you'd think.
> You could increase punishment for folk buying the goods
Do you mean the end-purchasers? Conceivably you could get some of the shopkeepers, if you can prove they knew the goods were suspect. But there's nothing criminal about buying household goods at a corner store—all the crime happened on the way there.
- mutatio 5y agoYeah, I'm just posing what could be done if the law regarding low value theft is immutable, if it can't be changed, something else has to give (I haven't got a clue what).
- jaredklewis 5y ago> pressure arrestees for lower-level crimes I guess this particular tactic isn’t an option if you don’t prosecute low level crimes like shoplifting.