3 ms·

Larceny goes to a jury where you live?

by justeleblanc 4y ago

CydeWeys 4y ago
It's a criminal charge, so yes, according to the Sixth Amendment it could go to a jury trial in any jurisdiction.
- justeleblanc 4y ago
  I guess you mean in any jurisdiction in the US. Where I live, jury trials are for the highest level of crimes (the translation would be felony I guess).
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    I'm not sure this clarification is necessary as we're in a discussion about NYC, on a US-based website, and the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution obviously applies within the US but not to other countries.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Maybe I've been living in California for too long, but I'm kind of shocked/confused at how someone stealing from a Target would go all the way to a jury trial. Surely the amount stolen was less than the cost of the police's time, the legal system, judges, attorneys, clerks, jurors, and so on. It would be more cost effective to simply have the local government reimburse Target for the loss.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    That's not really how criminal justice works. If someone murders you, no money is lost. They aren't trying to figure out who killed you so they'll pay what you would have paid in taxes. They investigate and prosecute murders to discourage murder. The same is mostly true for every crime. If you steal something of value and the insurance company gets reimbursed, that's just a bonus.
  - explaininjs 4y ago
    In CA, it's not shoplifting but rather "grand theft" after $950. Based on [1], target tracks you throughout the "shoplifting" to accumulate total losses and only goes after you once you hit "grand theft", where presumably the cost/benefit works out in their favor. This lines up with what I've heard on TikTok and from in person conversations with kleptomaniacs. (It's not uncommon for folks to go on thieving sprees throughout a mall. They think they're getting off scott-free, but are being secretly followed by security. Once they hit $950 the big guns come out.) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35031393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35031393
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Preventing crime isn't about cost-effectiveness in individual instances, it's about deterrence. Which is necessary for safety, but which is also "cost-effective" when you account for all the crime that has been deterred, if you tried to measure that in dollars somehow. But people also have rights, including the right to a trial with a jury of peers. Innocent people can be wrongly accused of stealing large amounts. It's worth the expense of a jury trial to force the prosecution to justify their case and give the innocent the change to defend themselves. And cost effectiveness plays no role here.
tchock23 4y ago
Value of the stolen goods exceeded a certain amount (I think it was $3k) so it went to a trial.

Larceny goes to a jury where you live?

CydeWeys 4y ago

It's a criminal charge, so yes, according to the Sixth Amendment it could go to a jury trial in any jurisdiction.

justeleblanc 4y ago
I guess you mean in any jurisdiction in the US. Where I live, jury trials are for the highest level of crimes (the translation would be felony I guess).
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  I'm not sure this clarification is necessary as we're in a discussion about NYC, on a US-based website, and the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution obviously applies within the US but not to other countries.
ryandrake 4y ago
Maybe I've been living in California for too long, but I'm kind of shocked/confused at how someone stealing from a Target would go all the way to a jury trial. Surely the amount stolen was less than the cost of the police's time, the legal system, judges, attorneys, clerks, jurors, and so on. It would be more cost effective to simply have the local government reimburse Target for the loss.
- jrockway 4y ago
  That's not really how criminal justice works. If someone murders you, no money is lost. They aren't trying to figure out who killed you so they'll pay what you would have paid in taxes. They investigate and prosecute murders to discourage murder. The same is mostly true for every crime. If you steal something of value and the insurance company gets reimbursed, that's just a bonus.
- explaininjs 4y ago
  In CA, it's not shoplifting but rather "grand theft" after $950. Based on [1], target tracks you throughout the "shoplifting" to accumulate total losses and only goes after you once you hit "grand theft", where presumably the cost/benefit works out in their favor. This lines up with what I've heard on TikTok and from in person conversations with kleptomaniacs. (It's not uncommon for folks to go on thieving sprees throughout a mall. They think they're getting off scott-free, but are being secretly followed by security. Once they hit $950 the big guns come out.) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35031393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35031393
- crazygringo 4y ago
  Preventing crime isn't about cost-effectiveness in individual instances, it's about deterrence. Which is necessary for safety, but which is also "cost-effective" when you account for all the crime that has been deterred, if you tried to measure that in dollars somehow. But people also have rights, including the right to a trial with a jury of peers. Innocent people can be wrongly accused of stealing large amounts. It's worth the expense of a jury trial to force the prosecution to justify their case and give the innocent the change to defend themselves. And cost effectiveness plays no role here.

tchock23 4y ago

Value of the stolen goods exceeded a certain amount (I think it was $3k) so it went to a trial.