5 ms·

On face value that’s pretty fanning of the current prosecutorial office. It’s a discouraging dereliction of duty to not follow up and prosecute these criminals

by mc32 5y ago

On face value that’s pretty fanning of the current prosecutorial office. It’s a discouraging dereliction of duty to not follow up and prosecute these criminals. These thefts not only hurt the companies but also hurt each buyer who will have to pay indirectly for the added cost of operations. As I mentioned in the previous thread, we may yet see a Pinkerton service rise to meet this need.

Miner49er 5y ago
> These thefts not only hurt the companies but also hurt each buyer who will have to pay indirectly for the added cost of operations. Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it.
- pempem 5y ago
  Well, first they need to be caught and brought up on charges. Then they can be prosecuted. The bigger question is where even is the LAPD?
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Per the letter, the question is NOT, "where even is the LAPD." It is, "where are the Los Angeles County prosecutors?" And the answer Union Pacific provides is, "letting these people who are arrested go free with a plea deal for simple trespassing."
  - zaroth 5y ago
    They are being caught and arrested. Then the DA lets them go, so they go back and steal more, and spread the word that nothing happens even when you do get caught.
- mc32 5y ago
  Non-prosecution sends a signal "it's okay, we will not prosecute you". Less scrupulous people learn there is no prosecution and this becomes a routine drag on rail commerce. In Nigeria you get people who hijack petrol transportation --often times they lead to fiery explosions. It's not a path we should want to devolve to. The middle ages had highway men. We want to avoid going backwards.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it. This naive first order thinking is why we can’t have nice things. Yes, prosecuting a guy for stealing $100 headphones might cost more than the merchandise, but you cannot think about this in isolation from broader social context. By showing that you will not prosecute crimes under certain monetary value, you’re sending a signal that these can now be done with no consequence, in effect enabling more and more crime to happen. It’s not about a pair of headphones, it’s about the career of crime for the perp you’re enabling, and the crime careers of the imitators.
  - cardiffspaceman 5y ago
    I don't think this is one guy stealing one box from a huge boxcar or container. It's multiple packages stolen at once. It would be too much work to scatter all that trash along the tracks, if it were many onesy-twosy thefts.
- chasd00 5y ago
  i wonder if the cheapest option is better locks on the containers
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Better locks only help until the point where it's easier to mangle the shipping container itself, bypassing the lock entirely, and impenetrable containers are needlessly expensive.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    Are there any practical locks that can't be defeated by an angle grinder in 5 minutes or less?
  - natch 5y ago
    I guess you haven’t heard of a Sawzall. Who even needs a door?
    - swearwolf 5y ago
      Or a cordless angle grinder.
      - jrnichols 5y ago
        the same tools that thieves are using to steal catalytic converters all over california too.
      - natch 5y ago
        Well they said “better lock” meaning, in the limit, “better than your angle grinder,” so I went in a different direction, the wall.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it. It's not a question of whether this damage is more, it's a question of whether the prosecution would reduce the total amount of future-damage that occurs as well. People who are in a jail are not stealing. People who expect significant risk of significant jail time are also not stealing, while those who expect minimal risk might be. These factors easily outweigh the cost of any single theft.
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    This is completely one sided. You also have to look at the future damage on the other side. The 2nd and 3rd and more order societal cost of jailing someone, etc.
- avalys 5y ago
  What does a single prosecution and court case cost? A few thousand dollars, at a minimum. So you are saying any crime that causes less than a few thousand dollars worth of damage is not worth prosecuting? How would you like it if I were to break in to your house through a window (a $1,000 expense) and steal your $2,500 MacBook Pro? The $3,500 in damages is less than the cost of identifying, arresting, prosecuting and punishing me. Not worth it - just let it go?
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    This is already how it is. Police rarely do anything in that type of break in.
bpodgursky 5y ago
Pinkertons (or any private security) basically have no authority to use lethal force anymore (unless the criminal is dumb enough to attack them), so their value as a deterrent is minimal. They can theoretically arrest, but if the prosecutors don't press charges, it's meaningless.
dilap 5y ago
gpm 5y ago
The letter doesn't support that the prosecutors are not following up and prosecuting these criminals, rather it says the exact opposite. Rather, the complaint seems to be that the government is granting the criminals their constitutional rights to bail and a presumption of innocence before trial, that the prosecution is accepting milder plea deals than the railroad company would like, and that the court system is backed up. Emphasis added to the below quote to support each of those statements > Criminals are caught and arrested, turned over to local authorities for booking, arraigned before the local courts, charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense, and the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine. These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than twenty-four hours. Even with all the arrests made, the no-cash bail policy and extended timeframe for suspects to appear in court is causing re-victimization to UP by these same criminals. This is the railroads side of the story, and even it doesn't support the idea that the prosecutors are just "not follow[ing] up and prosecut[ing] these criminals". Moreover the court system being backed up is not prosecutors fault, and not offering mild plea deals would just result in a more backed up court system... There are probably some valid criticisms of the prosecutors here, but let's at least consider that there are tradeoffs they are making, and that this isn't something that is solely their fault.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Our legal system is expensive, and much of that expense is baked into the constitution. Most of our justice system is designed to prioritize offenses that make money for the government/police/DA. Which means, focusing on drug offenses. Any crime tangentially-related to drugs can result in civil asset forfeiture. DUIs result in massive fines, so those get attention too. But theft is a cost-center crime and is largely ignored.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    > Any crime tangentially-related to drugs Or lack thereof.

by mc32 5y ago

Miner49er 5y ago

> These thefts not only hurt the companies but also hurt each buyer who will have to pay indirectly for the added cost of operations. Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it.

pempem 5y ago
Well, first they need to be caught and brought up on charges. Then they can be prosecuted. The bigger question is where even is the LAPD?
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Per the letter, the question is NOT, "where even is the LAPD." It is, "where are the Los Angeles County prosecutors?" And the answer Union Pacific provides is, "letting these people who are arrested go free with a plea deal for simple trespassing."
- zaroth 5y ago
  They are being caught and arrested. Then the DA lets them go, so they go back and steal more, and spread the word that nothing happens even when you do get caught.
mc32 5y ago
Non-prosecution sends a signal "it's okay, we will not prosecute you". Less scrupulous people learn there is no prosecution and this becomes a routine drag on rail commerce. In Nigeria you get people who hijack petrol transportation --often times they lead to fiery explosions. It's not a path we should want to devolve to. The middle ages had highway men. We want to avoid going backwards.
xyzzyz 5y ago
> Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it. This naive first order thinking is why we can’t have nice things. Yes, prosecuting a guy for stealing $100 headphones might cost more than the merchandise, but you cannot think about this in isolation from broader social context. By showing that you will not prosecute crimes under certain monetary value, you’re sending a signal that these can now be done with no consequence, in effect enabling more and more crime to happen. It’s not about a pair of headphones, it’s about the career of crime for the perp you’re enabling, and the crime careers of the imitators.
- cardiffspaceman 5y ago
  I don't think this is one guy stealing one box from a huge boxcar or container. It's multiple packages stolen at once. It would be too much work to scatter all that trash along the tracks, if it were many onesy-twosy thefts.
chasd00 5y ago
i wonder if the cheapest option is better locks on the containers
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Better locks only help until the point where it's easier to mangle the shipping container itself, bypassing the lock entirely, and impenetrable containers are needlessly expensive.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Are there any practical locks that can't be defeated by an angle grinder in 5 minutes or less?
- natch 5y ago
  I guess you haven’t heard of a Sawzall. Who even needs a door?
  - swearwolf 5y ago
    Or a cordless angle grinder.
    - jrnichols 5y ago
      the same tools that thieves are using to steal catalytic converters all over california too.
    - natch 5y ago
      Well they said “better lock” meaning, in the limit, “better than your angle grinder,” so I went in a different direction, the wall.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
> Is this damage more then the cost of prosecuting and punishing the thieves? If not, it's not worth it. It's not a question of whether this damage is more, it's a question of whether the prosecution would reduce the total amount of future-damage that occurs as well. People who are in a jail are not stealing. People who expect significant risk of significant jail time are also not stealing, while those who expect minimal risk might be. These factors easily outweigh the cost of any single theft.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  This is completely one sided. You also have to look at the future damage on the other side. The 2nd and 3rd and more order societal cost of jailing someone, etc.
avalys 5y ago
What does a single prosecution and court case cost? A few thousand dollars, at a minimum. So you are saying any crime that causes less than a few thousand dollars worth of damage is not worth prosecuting? How would you like it if I were to break in to your house through a window (a $1,000 expense) and steal your $2,500 MacBook Pro? The $3,500 in damages is less than the cost of identifying, arresting, prosecuting and punishing me. Not worth it - just let it go?
- Miner49er 5y ago
  This is already how it is. Police rarely do anything in that type of break in.

bpodgursky 5y ago

Pinkertons (or any private security) basically have no authority to use lethal force anymore (unless the criminal is dumb enough to attack them), so their value as a deterrent is minimal. They can theoretically arrest, but if the prosecutors don't press charges, it's meaningless.

dilap 5y ago

gpm 5y ago

The letter doesn't support that the prosecutors are not following up and prosecuting these criminals, rather it says the exact opposite. Rather, the complaint seems to be that the government is granting the criminals their constitutional rights to bail and a presumption of innocence before trial, that the prosecution is accepting milder plea deals than the railroad company would like, and that the court system is backed up. Emphasis added to the below quote to support each of those statements > Criminals are caught and arrested, turned over to local authorities for booking, arraigned before the local courts, charges are reduced to a misdemeanor or petty offense, and the criminal is released after paying a nominal fine. These individuals are generally caught and released back onto the streets in less than twenty-four hours. Even with all the arrests made, the no-cash bail policy and extended timeframe for suspects to appear in court is causing re-victimization to UP by these same criminals. This is the railroads side of the story, and even it doesn't support the idea that the prosecutors are just "not follow[ing] up and prosecut[ing] these criminals". Moreover the court system being backed up is not prosecutors fault, and not offering mild plea deals would just result in a more backed up court system... There are probably some valid criticisms of the prosecutors here, but let's at least consider that there are tradeoffs they are making, and that this isn't something that is solely their fault.

mywittyname 5y ago
Our legal system is expensive, and much of that expense is baked into the constitution. Most of our justice system is designed to prioritize offenses that make money for the government/police/DA. Which means, focusing on drug offenses. Any crime tangentially-related to drugs can result in civil asset forfeiture. DUIs result in massive fines, so those get attention too. But theft is a cost-center crime and is largely ignored.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
- the_only_law 5y ago
  > Any crime tangentially-related to drugs Or lack thereof.