11 ms·

Im not sure we should allow such premeditated charge stacking, it is just further weaponizing the law and fueling our prison industrial complex for zero gain to

Im not sure we should allow such premeditated charge stacking, it is just further weaponizing the law and fueling our prison industrial complex for zero gain to society. Who is to say many of those people wouldn't have stopped after being caught and charged the first time? Imagine if cops sat on the side of the road not pulling people over, just recording minor traffic offenses in a file, and then a year or so later drop 10+ charges on a person all at once and turning the collective charges into felony reckless driving charges? People would be outraged and nothing of worth would be gained.

pests 1y ago
Target is also known for building cases over time until more serious charges can be used.
widforss 1y ago
What you're describing is essentially the exact point system used for traffic infractions in many countries over the world. Driving 10 km/h above the speed limit? No biggie, you pay a fine. Do it three times? We take your license.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    Well, maybe there should be some sort of public registry where this sort of in process evidence would be publicly viable for you and others. Then you could regularly check it.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      If the store is going to be tracking this information, it could just as easily show a message to the offender. "Hey, we're on to you. Knock it off, or else." Going straight for the jugular is just rude.
      - Ekaros 1y ago
        [flagged]
        GOD_Over_Djinn 1y ago
        Stealing from Home Depot doesn’t make you a “sociopathic criminal”. It’s shoplifting, not murder. Besides, people who are stealing building supplies are probably doing it because they’re hard up for money and trying to make more on whatever jobs they have. They’re not stealing some random superfluous consumer goods, they’re just broke and trying to make a little more money. It’s really not that hard to understand - unless you exist solely in the white collar Silicon Valley bubble and have never known a struggle in your life. The fact that you think they “deserve no sympathy” is straight up creepy. Who are you, Marie Antoinette? Who is the real sociopath here?
        pastage 1y ago
        > white collar Silicon Valley bubble This is not helping. You should not make up an enemy that does not exist. There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle. Go back to the reason of an eye for an eye, it is compelling even if it has been disproven.
        vineyardmike 1y ago
        > There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment Then they probably don't find "an eye for an eye" compelling. The whole expression is meant to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Stealing from Home Depot is a pretty minor crime, so should warrant pretty minor punishment. And it is widely proven that people who are experiencing struggles in life are more likely to turn to crime. Reducing poverty reduces crime. Just because some people struggled and now want to dish out punishments, doesn't make it "sane" nor effective.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    In the U.K. you get points on a license for being caught speeding (and other offence). Typically 3. Knock 12 points up over 3 years and you lose your license. The problem is the time it takes from being caught to getting the letter can be a couple of weeks. You could literally go from 0 points to license loss for driving 10 miles on an empty road with changeable speed limits and have no idea until a week or two later when you get 4 letters arrive. Now until the court takes away your license you’re still allowed to drive, but it gives you no chance to change your behaviour.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      That's an imperfection of the system, not a designed feature of it. It's also possible you sometimes go over the speed limit and there are no sensors around to detect that condition.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      *loicense
  - widforss 1y ago
    You are correct, I didn't realize this nuance.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    I mean, if they walked out with a felony amount of stuff the first time the system would have tossed them directly in jail. I can understand why the stores will do it this way. Each prosecution is very expensive. If you're going to go though the effort with the legal system bring a case that stops the culprit. More so, doing this tends to scare the hell out of people that think they've gotten away with something. Kinda like the thievery version of the Santa Claus song. "Walmart knows when you are sleeping. Walmart knows when your away, Walmart knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake".
- closewith 1y ago
  The difference is that you are informed and penalised each time, rightly giving you the option to change your behaviour. A police officer following a speeder to deliberately have enough offences to take their license immediately would be at least frowned upon in most jurisdictions.
Ekaros 1y ago
Seems like proper punishment is only way to get deterrent effect. Or the courts to do their job. So to me this sounds like workable way, stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  I feel like if the rules are going to change like this, they should change fairly. A few months in jail for what would have been petty crime if not for the repetition seems excessive. If right now there's a lower cash value threshold for prosecution, the fair thing is that there should be a lower rate threshold. For example, someone shouldn't be jailed for stealing a thousand dollars worth of batteries over the course of ten years, I don't think.
- cortesoft 1y ago
  Do you have ANY evidence that sending someone to jail for a few months to a few years sets people on a straight path? I am pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    It's shocking at times to see such these ideas parroted in a community that prides itself on critical thinking. Punishment isn't rehabilitation!
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    So why we are even using it anymore? Why not then close down all the prisons? If there is no deterrent effect or rehabilitation effect. Wouldn't it be greater savings just to close it all down and let everyone out?
    - black_knight 1y ago
      Yes.
      - 1y ago
the_third_wave 1y ago
Time to change your laws and/or prosecutors I'd say so those 'minor thefts' can and will be prosecuted resulting in fines which need to be paid - no ifs and buts. Get them early and get them (hopefully not that) often and you may be able to keep the majority of 'proletarian shoppers' on a somewhat less crooked path. If crime pays more people commit crimes, if shoplifting is not dealt with more people shoplift.
novok 1y ago
Or if your dealing with forgetful / tech confused old people. Now your putting 75 year olds in jail when a sooner alerting system would've made them notice if they were not using it correctly.
- conductr 1y ago
  I'm not a trained cashier, if I forget to scan something it's not the same as theft. Not sure how it would play out in a court situation but this is always my go-to when I get accused of fucking something up in the store; also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state). Most professional cashiers are only trained in one merchant's POS. Suddenly, me a layman consumer is supposed to be a flawless operator of every variant of self-checkout POS that I encounter. It's a bit crazy to me that a court would side with a merchant unless some egregious evidence or pattern had could be demonstrated.
  - distances 1y ago
    It's thankfully still an option not to use self-checkouts. I sometimes do that if I have one item only, but basically always queue to an actual cashier.
    - Scoundreller 1y ago
      I loved the early days when nobody touched the self-checkouts and it was like an additional choice. Not surprising that they’ve titrated the cashier lines to always be much longer. At least it’s not a government again giving you quick service if you sign away your rights with a lineup around the block for those that with to assert their rights. I’m also thankful that my local grocery store is subject to a massive development proposal, so they’re not bothering with capital improvements like self-checkout.
    - conductr 1y ago
      The option is becoming rare amongst most large retailers I frequent and only exists in my local Home Depots if I go stand through the contractor lines in the lumber section. I've gotten used to the expectation that I will be my own cashier at most places, but I'm not OK assuming any liability that comes with my lack of cashier skillset/training which is what they want.
gblargg 1y ago
I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Stores don't decide whether to charge someone with a crime, the prosecutor does. They probably wait for small to become big because shoplifting a small amount doesn't reach a high enough bar to make prosecuting likely.
  - loeg 1y ago
    Pedantics aside, it's more or less the same thing. Prosecutors in some places aren't charging misdemeanor theft. Stores know this.
- AngryData 1y ago
  I have yet to see any actual evidence of such a problem, just a bunch of outrage from social media commentators who also claim things like Portland was burnt to the ground by BLM and other hyper-exaggerated crap. And even if it is true, I still don't see why premeditated charge stacking should be allowed. If someone comes into the store that they know will steal, they should be banned from the store and arrested for trespassing then and there. Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. Having 25% of the world prison population, along with all the costs that go along with it does not benefit us, it only hurts us. And it has repeatedly been shown that stiffer criminal charges do not prevent crime, if it did the US would be one of the safest 1st world countries, not the most dangerous 1st world country by a large margin that makes countries without actual functioning government seem peaceful.
  - ProllyInfamous 1y ago
    >Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. As we say over here, bless. your. heart. ...if you only knew how bad things really are [deadpan.face] We are nations of loopholes, inside and out.
cryptonector 1y ago
Blame jurisdictions that made shoplifting up to $900 or similarly large amounts practically not-a-crime.

pests 1y ago

Target is also known for building cases over time until more serious charges can be used.

widforss 1y ago

What you're describing is essentially the exact point system used for traffic infractions in many countries over the world. Driving 10 km/h above the speed limit? No biggie, you pay a fine. Do it three times? We take your license.

fluoridation 1y ago
No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Well, maybe there should be some sort of public registry where this sort of in process evidence would be publicly viable for you and others. Then you could regularly check it.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    If the store is going to be tracking this information, it could just as easily show a message to the offender. "Hey, we're on to you. Knock it off, or else." Going straight for the jugular is just rude.
    - Ekaros 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - GOD_Over_Djinn 1y ago
        Stealing from Home Depot doesn’t make you a “sociopathic criminal”. It’s shoplifting, not murder. Besides, people who are stealing building supplies are probably doing it because they’re hard up for money and trying to make more on whatever jobs they have. They’re not stealing some random superfluous consumer goods, they’re just broke and trying to make a little more money. It’s really not that hard to understand - unless you exist solely in the white collar Silicon Valley bubble and have never known a struggle in your life. The fact that you think they “deserve no sympathy” is straight up creepy. Who are you, Marie Antoinette? Who is the real sociopath here?
        pastage 1y ago
        > white collar Silicon Valley bubble This is not helping. You should not make up an enemy that does not exist. There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle. Go back to the reason of an eye for an eye, it is compelling even if it has been disproven.
        vineyardmike 1y ago
        > There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment Then they probably don't find "an eye for an eye" compelling. The whole expression is meant to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Stealing from Home Depot is a pretty minor crime, so should warrant pretty minor punishment. And it is widely proven that people who are experiencing struggles in life are more likely to turn to crime. Reducing poverty reduces crime. Just because some people struggled and now want to dish out punishments, doesn't make it "sane" nor effective.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  In the U.K. you get points on a license for being caught speeding (and other offence). Typically 3. Knock 12 points up over 3 years and you lose your license. The problem is the time it takes from being caught to getting the letter can be a couple of weeks. You could literally go from 0 points to license loss for driving 10 miles on an empty road with changeable speed limits and have no idea until a week or two later when you get 4 letters arrive. Now until the court takes away your license you’re still allowed to drive, but it gives you no chance to change your behaviour.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    That's an imperfection of the system, not a designed feature of it. It's also possible you sometimes go over the speed limit and there are no sensors around to detect that condition.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    *loicense
- widforss 1y ago
  You are correct, I didn't realize this nuance.
- pixl97 1y ago
  I mean, if they walked out with a felony amount of stuff the first time the system would have tossed them directly in jail. I can understand why the stores will do it this way. Each prosecution is very expensive. If you're going to go though the effort with the legal system bring a case that stops the culprit. More so, doing this tends to scare the hell out of people that think they've gotten away with something. Kinda like the thievery version of the Santa Claus song. "Walmart knows when you are sleeping. Walmart knows when your away, Walmart knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake".
closewith 1y ago
The difference is that you are informed and penalised each time, rightly giving you the option to change your behaviour. A police officer following a speeder to deliberately have enough offences to take their license immediately would be at least frowned upon in most jurisdictions.

Ekaros 1y ago

Seems like proper punishment is only way to get deterrent effect. Or the courts to do their job. So to me this sounds like workable way, stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.

fluoridation 1y ago
I feel like if the rules are going to change like this, they should change fairly. A few months in jail for what would have been petty crime if not for the repetition seems excessive. If right now there's a lower cash value threshold for prosecution, the fair thing is that there should be a lower rate threshold. For example, someone shouldn't be jailed for stealing a thousand dollars worth of batteries over the course of ten years, I don't think.
cortesoft 1y ago
Do you have ANY evidence that sending someone to jail for a few months to a few years sets people on a straight path? I am pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  It's shocking at times to see such these ideas parroted in a community that prides itself on critical thinking. Punishment isn't rehabilitation!
- Ekaros 1y ago
  So why we are even using it anymore? Why not then close down all the prisons? If there is no deterrent effect or rehabilitation effect. Wouldn't it be greater savings just to close it all down and let everyone out?
  - black_knight 1y ago
    Yes.
    - 1y ago

the_third_wave 1y ago

Time to change your laws and/or prosecutors I'd say so those 'minor thefts' can and will be prosecuted resulting in fines which need to be paid - no ifs and buts. Get them early and get them (hopefully not that) often and you may be able to keep the majority of 'proletarian shoppers' on a somewhat less crooked path. If crime pays more people commit crimes, if shoplifting is not dealt with more people shoplift.

novok 1y ago

Or if your dealing with forgetful / tech confused old people. Now your putting 75 year olds in jail when a sooner alerting system would've made them notice if they were not using it correctly.

conductr 1y ago
I'm not a trained cashier, if I forget to scan something it's not the same as theft. Not sure how it would play out in a court situation but this is always my go-to when I get accused of fucking something up in the store; also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state). Most professional cashiers are only trained in one merchant's POS. Suddenly, me a layman consumer is supposed to be a flawless operator of every variant of self-checkout POS that I encounter. It's a bit crazy to me that a court would side with a merchant unless some egregious evidence or pattern had could be demonstrated.
- distances 1y ago
  It's thankfully still an option not to use self-checkouts. I sometimes do that if I have one item only, but basically always queue to an actual cashier.
  - Scoundreller 1y ago
    I loved the early days when nobody touched the self-checkouts and it was like an additional choice. Not surprising that they’ve titrated the cashier lines to always be much longer. At least it’s not a government again giving you quick service if you sign away your rights with a lineup around the block for those that with to assert their rights. I’m also thankful that my local grocery store is subject to a massive development proposal, so they’re not bothering with capital improvements like self-checkout.
  - conductr 1y ago
    The option is becoming rare amongst most large retailers I frequent and only exists in my local Home Depots if I go stand through the contractor lines in the lumber section. I've gotten used to the expectation that I will be my own cashier at most places, but I'm not OK assuming any liability that comes with my lack of cashier skillset/training which is what they want.

gblargg 1y ago

I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.

ryandrake 1y ago
Stores don't decide whether to charge someone with a crime, the prosecutor does. They probably wait for small to become big because shoplifting a small amount doesn't reach a high enough bar to make prosecuting likely.
- loeg 1y ago
  Pedantics aside, it's more or less the same thing. Prosecutors in some places aren't charging misdemeanor theft. Stores know this.
AngryData 1y ago
I have yet to see any actual evidence of such a problem, just a bunch of outrage from social media commentators who also claim things like Portland was burnt to the ground by BLM and other hyper-exaggerated crap. And even if it is true, I still don't see why premeditated charge stacking should be allowed. If someone comes into the store that they know will steal, they should be banned from the store and arrested for trespassing then and there. Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. Having 25% of the world prison population, along with all the costs that go along with it does not benefit us, it only hurts us. And it has repeatedly been shown that stiffer criminal charges do not prevent crime, if it did the US would be one of the safest 1st world countries, not the most dangerous 1st world country by a large margin that makes countries without actual functioning government seem peaceful.
- ProllyInfamous 1y ago
  >Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. As we say over here, bless. your. heart. ...if you only knew how bad things really are [deadpan.face] We are nations of loopholes, inside and out.

cryptonector 1y ago

Blame jurisdictions that made shoplifting up to $900 or similarly large amounts practically not-a-crime.