I have to make some comments on this post I found on a law blog I peruse. I know this is not directly related to Information Security, but it related to security in general, so I have to make some comments.
Basically, the author of this post (Dan Filler) is making the argument that the cost of shoplifting should be shifted to the retailer. Specifically, he looking at WalMart since the post started out with a comment about how they are shifting their policy to not prosecute first time shoplifters younger than 18 and older than 65 when taking merchandise with a value under $25. That is WalMart’s right to do, and it might actually be a good idea for them.
Read the post all the way through and look at Mr. Miller’s ideas about this. Here are my comments.
Yes, it is a crime. But I have a huge problem trying to shift the cost of enforcement to the retailer is ridiculous.
Â
First, many retailers already employee most if not all of the measures you say they should employee. What else can they do? They already have to catch the crook. They don’t bring cops in to patrol the stores! If the security guard is a witness in the case, the retailer should pay him / her for the time they appear in court.
Â
Second, when they catch the criminal, they call the cops for prosecution. That is how our system works for CRIMINALS. You are trying to change the system for a particular crime just because some cops don’t want to do their job. That is beyond ridiculous, and the cops that have that attitude and react slower to these types of crimes should be kicked out of the force. That is why WE pay them.
Â
Third, how is it fair to the retailer to shift the cost of prosecution to them when they are the victim? They are simply trying to run a business and are already losing millions and millions a year due to these crooks. Why should they be taxed further? Do you tell a rape victim to pay for the prosecution of her attacker? Come on.
Sheesh
Â
Vet
Â
