• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of punishme

Re: Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of puni

Then blame the article. It was a complete piece of crap, and is biased against the program and has very little connection with reality.

I have been describing how both Loss Prevention works, and how this program works. Ignore most of that piece of crap article, it is biased and wrong, and makes it out like some kind of scam by companies to extort money from innocent people.

Yes, what the article describes is illegal in a great many things, from the initial "shoplifting arrest" through how they describe how it works. That is very true, and why I have blasted it myself. What I have been describing is the reality of the program, how it works, and what the intent is.

Then I'll defer to your personal experience. If what you say is correct, then they are not breaking the law. If what the article says is correct, then they are.
 
Re: Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of puni

Then I'll defer to your personal experience. If what you say is correct, then they are not breaking the law. If what the article says is correct, then they are.

The article is wrong and full of crap. Here, let me go through it a bit more.

Imagine you’re browsing at Bloomingdale’s when a security guard taps you on the shoulder and accuses you of shoplifting. He takes you to a private room, sits you down, and runs your name through a database to see if you have any outstanding warrants. Then he tells you that you have two options. The first involves him calling the police, who might arrest you and take you to jail. The second allows you to walk out of the store immediately, no questions asked—right after you sign an admission of guilt and agree to pay $320 to take an online course designed to make you never want to steal again.

Notice, nothing said that the individual was shoplifting or not. It should start out "Imagine you are caught shoplifting in Bloomingdales...", that would be much more accurate. The "5 steps" are well known and followed by all Loss Prevention professionals, "Security Guards" just do not go up to people inside of stores and accuse them of shoplifting. And where is the description of recovering the stolen merchandise? That is another key part that is missing in their "story".

Also, there is no "choice" given between Police or "the program". We decide based upon what was taken if we are going to call the police, not if they want to sign up for this program or not. If the types of items taken and/or ammount exceed certain paramaters, they are ineligable for the program, so that is completely off the table.

The choice given is purely if you want to pay Civil Restitution to the legal department of the store, or instead take this program to try and prevent future shoplifting. Only that, nothing else. The store I worked at with this program had a policy of thefts under $200 were handled internally with no police involvement (unless it was ORC, in which the police were called no matter the amount). Once again, ORC thieves are not eligable for the program (and more then likely have previous apprehensions, and are ineligable for the program).

And the cost? They should be happy, most in California are happy to pay that. Because the Civil Restitution Law in California allows the store to demand up to $500 in Civil Restitution. Agreeing to the program caps it out at a pre-set value, and is actually right in the range of what most restitutions demanded are.

Now, here is another factor. Say you will take the course and refuse to take it, CEC and the merchant will turn the case over to the police. Most police departments now have departments that handle this kind of petty crime. We send them our reports and all other information, and they cite you through the mail and you will be advised of a court hearing in the future. Many departments do not even respond to shoplifting calls, they tell you to just mail them the reports and they handle it from there as an administrative matter.

And finally, say you refuse the program or are not eligable. You get a citation and go to court. Do you know what you very well might be ordered to attend, paying out of your own pocket? Yep, Theft Prevention Classes.

We are in our 7th year with over 14,000 clients who have successfully completed and satisfied their court orders through our program. CourtOrderedClasses.com has been designed for individuals who need to take court ordered courses for court ordered requirements, at the request of their employer, or for personal reasons. We are the only nationally recognized program to offer court approved domestic violence classes, anger management classes, battery classes, deferred entry of judgment classes, criminal behavior modification classes, divorce classes, parenting classes, and theft prevention classes all from the comfort of home and with live, group sessions.
California Approved Domestic Violence, Anger Management,Shoplifting, Divorce Parenting, Behavior Modification and DEJ Courses

In addition to the civil restitution and court costs and fines they are already stuck with.
 
Re: Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of puni

(CONTINUED)


So it still sounds like a great deal. There was a report in a trade magazine I read a while back which described the cost that one shoplifter had to pay for stealing $250 in health and beauty products. $650 civil restitution (the restitution plus court costs), another $500 in court costs and fines, and $600 for theft prevention classes. Almost $2,000 all said and done, not counting time lost from work and other misc. expenses.

Now if a store decides that they want to give them a choice of "program or police", that is fully their right, but CEC itself says that is not how it is to be used. But remember, we have a choice anyways if we are going to call the police or not. Often times I have called the cops on individuals who took relatively minor things (once was a $2.25 can of beer) because they are violent, repeat offenders who have been told to stay out in the past (tresspassing), or because of other things involved (one was a minor with a stun gun and 2 ounces of weed in addition to what he stole).

But 90% of the reason I call the cops is simply because they have no ID. We call not to have them cited, but simply to verify who they are. Cops confirm they are who they say they are, and we let them go on their way, no citation. But 2 times so far the individual gave me and the cops bad information, and the cops did not only cite them but took them to jail, generally pissed off at the waste of time and the person's behavior (one gave the information of an individual listed in the records as deceased). Plus taking them through the entire booking process is the only way to positively identify them if they will not cooperate.

Finally, one has to remember whenever they read an article from Slate that a large number of those posts are really nothing more then blogs. Here are some of the other articles by the author of this one...

Leon Neyfakh
Does this sound like Leon Neyfakh is really a "serious journalist"? He may be, he does and has worked at newspapers in the past. But Slate is little more then a blog, with the kind of research and writing that you typically find in a blog. The very fact that he picked the wording "accuses" instead of "catches" is intended to imply that it is a scam, catching innocent people and forcing them to take classes.

Well, guess what? When you detain a shoplifter, I am placing them under arrest. If they have nothing on them they may very well (and are legally within their right) to then call the police themselves, and have me charged with making a false arrest.
 
Re: Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of puni

Oozle, you contradicted yourself. You said that you give them a choice purely between civil restitution or the program, but then you said that if they refuse you call the police. Which is it?

And as I showed above, it isn't the store's right to give them a choice of the program or criminal charges. That's illegal.
 
Re: Pay us or we’ll call the cops: Many U.S. stores giving shoplifters choice of puni

Oozle, you contradicted yourself. You said that you give them a choice purely between civil restitution or the program, but then you said that if they refuse you call the police. Which is it?

And as I showed above, it isn't the store's right to give them a choice of the program or criminal charges. That's illegal.

Ther eis a difference between can and will.

I have never done that, ever. If they refuse the program, then they get the standard civil restitution form and then dela with the store's legal department. And in fact, I said quite the opposite:

But if they refused, I did not call the police in a single instance, I just did the civil restitution paperwork and sent them on their way.

Now please, where did I say I called the police if they refused?
 
Back
Top Bottom