Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-17-2019, 03:53 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I find it difficult to believe that the cops would not know about this change in policy by the DA. Therefore if they notice, or think they notice, that the revolving door is revolving faster, it would be natural to attribute it to the new policy.
What they think and what they know aren't necessarily the same thing. I'm sure the cops will know about the change in policy - I'm sure they won't know about the outcome of each individual arrest unless they make it a point to check. What I don't know is whether the change in policy leads to a practical difference in terms of how quickly arrestees get released - if the current practice is that most people arrested for shoplifting are released the next day ( either ROR'd or bailed out or sentenced to time served) the new policy wouldn't lead to a noticeable change in how quickly they are back on the street.



However, regarding the theft charges, the DA is going to have to either refine or better publicize the details regarding the theft of "necessary items". I saw another article where he clarified that it was meant to apply to food or formula , not clothing . I'm going to assume there are other factors he intends to consider, even if they only exist in his mind. And he had better publicize them soon. I am about 100% certain he didn't mean to say if someone dined and dashed on a $500 dinner for 2 he wouldn't prosecute - but I can't imagine what $750 necessary item he could be talking about unless it was a prescription medication. And if the $750 limit is meant for that, and his actual threshold for food would be much lower , he needs to let people know that.
  #52  
Old 04-17-2019, 10:33 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I think most people don't steal stuff because they believe it's wrong, not out of fear of prosecution. Anyway, as you'll note, I said I wouldn't make that change if I was in charge, but I assume this guy has his reasons. I'm just willing to keep an open mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
Agreed, most people don't steal stuff because it's wrong.

Also, another poster pointed out it's for necessities, so let's continue with those two constraints, here are some things I would expect t be in the necessities category:
food/water
medicine
clothes
(could probably put utilities in here also, but we'll leave them out)


Also, let's speculate that 95% percent of people don't steal because it's wrong. I personally think the number is much lower, but for purposes of this thought experiment we'll keep the number high. So the 5% of people (or whatever the percent is) that have a different moral compass than the average joe are allowed to steal items that are necessities under $750. I can see one result: increased theft.

In what way does that "work"?

If the goal is to make sure people that are in need get their basic necessities, doesn't it make more sense to provide them using some alternate method so you don't open the floodgates for the people that would abuse it?

I'm hoping you will respond to this post, I'm struggling to understand how it wouldn't just increase theft.
  #53  
Old 04-18-2019, 07:42 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
What they think and what they know aren't necessarily the same thing. I'm sure the cops will know about the change in policy - I'm sure they won't know about the outcome of each individual arrest unless they make it a point to check.
That's probably true. Part of my point is that it is likely to lead to a perception, by cops and by the public, that repeat offenders - the "frequent flyers" notorious in jails, emergency rooms, and drunk tanks - are back on the streets faster than they used to be. Also that the cops encounter pushback, either from their supervisors or from the DA's office, not to waste time arresting them/transporting them/booking them/arraigning them because they aren't going to be charged anyway. Maybe that's unfair, maybe there isn't a lot of difference in the revolving door - but it may appear that way, and thereby erode the public trust in law enforcement, or the DA's office, or both.
Quote:
However, regarding the theft charges, the DA is going to have to either refine or better publicize the details regarding the theft of "necessary items". I saw another article where he clarified that it was meant to apply to food or formula , not clothing .
My impression, and it is no more than that, is that the policy is aimed at people who steal (for instance) high-demand items like baby formula, and either use for their own children, or sell it. So if you steal it for your own baby, no charges, but if you "possess with intent to sell" then you will be charged.

How they will determine if you wanted it for your own baby/your nephew/your neighbor's baby vs. selling it, I don't know. Maybe they will treat it like drugs - possession of over a certain amount makes you a dealer. But if $750 is the limit, that's a hell of a lot of baby formula.

I used to work in a department store, and we were targeted by organized groups of shoplifting rings. What the shoplifters were after was mostly jewelry, or expensive clothes. I can see defining jewelry as not a necessity of life, but what about the lady who goes into the changing room with five pairs of $100 jeans, and comes out carrying three pairs and the other two are under her old jeans? And then she tells the DA that clothes are a necessity of life.

Regards,
Shodan
  #54  
Old 04-18-2019, 08:44 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 11,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
I'm hoping you will respond to this post, I'm struggling to understand how it wouldn't just increase theft.
I guess by "work" I mean there's an argument that small increase in theft is less destructive to people and society then the current system of prosecuting people who steal "necessities." Again, I'm not advocating for this. When I defended misdemeanors for a living (long ago and far away) we didn't have that many small theft cases, although obviously there were some. Defendants' lives weren't ruined, few went to jail, and lessons learned. Courts and prosecutors were willing to look at the circumstances of each case and try to do the right thing. As I said, Dallas in 2019 might be a lot differnt than what I saw on Seattle in 1988. I'm willing to keep an open mind and give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he knows more than I do and that he's put some thought into this.
  #55  
Old 04-18-2019, 09:13 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I'm willing to keep an open mind and give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he knows more than I do and that he's put some thought into this.
Where I'm a bit disturbed is that as the DA, he's putting concern and rights of a relative few individuals ahead of the County's obligation to provide law and order for ALL the citizens of the county.

I mean, is it more important that we let a few people steal necessities who really need them, even at the cost of more theft overall and "innocent" people getting robbed, or is it more important that the law enforcement/courts apparatus of the County try and minimize ALL theft, even at the cost of possibly hurting those who are stealing through necessity?

That needs of the individual vs. obligation to the community dichotomy seems to be at the root of a lot of these sorts of things- I'm starting to wonder if a thread about that w.r.t. liberal/conservative viewpoints would be fruitful?
  #56  
Old 04-18-2019, 09:42 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 11,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Where I'm a bit disturbed is that as the DA, he's putting concern and rights of a relative few individuals ahead of the County's obligation to provide law and order for ALL the citizens of the county.

I mean, is it more important that we let a few people steal necessities who really need them, even at the cost of more theft overall and "innocent" people getting robbed, or is it more important that the law enforcement/courts apparatus of the County try and minimize ALL theft, even at the cost of possibly hurting those who are stealing through necessity?

That needs of the individual vs. obligation to the community dichotomy seems to be at the root of a lot of these sorts of things- I'm starting to wonder if a thread about that w.r.t. liberal/conservative viewpoints would be fruitful?
I assume he thinks that in the long run, helping out these "relatively few individuals" will make all of us safer, or cost us less, or whatever.
  #57  
Old 04-18-2019, 09:42 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I mean, is it more important that we let a few people steal necessities who really need them, even at the cost of more theft overall and "innocent" people getting robbed, or is it more important that the law enforcement/courts apparatus of the County try and minimize ALL theft, even at the cost of possibly hurting those who are stealing through necessity?

That needs of the individual vs. obligation to the community dichotomy seems to be at the root of a lot of these sorts of things- I'm starting to wonder if a thread about that w.r.t. liberal/conservative viewpoints would be fruitful?
I don't doubt that such a thread would gather a lot of responses.

I expect that a lot of it is liberals thinking the poor are like Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to keep from starving. And conservatives thinking that $750 is a lot of bread. Especially when not a lot of poor people seem to be starving.

Regards,
Shodan
  #58  
Old 04-18-2019, 09:59 AM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I mean, is it more important that we let a few people steal necessities who really need them, even at the cost of more theft overall and "innocent" people getting robbed, or is it more important that the law enforcement/courts apparatus of the County try and minimize ALL theft, even at the cost of possibly hurting those who are stealing through necessity?

Generally speaking (although I certainly can't speak for this DA) , policies like this have less to do with letting people who need necessities steal them and more to do with the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. Let's say for example that someone steals a can of powdered formula that goes for about $50. They stole only one can, so it's unlikely to be for resale. He or she is arrested and prosecuted and spends a few days in jail for the offense. How much does that cost? I know in my city , the jail charges over $200 per day for detaining people for other jurisdictions because that's how much it costs them. And the police officer who is processing the arrest and comes to court may be on overtime for part of it. Even if it's not overtime, that's time taken away from his or her other duties. And that's not even accounting for other costs - maybe some family member loses their job because the person in jail can't provide child -care anymore and so on .

I don't agree with everything as written in that document ( especially the $750 theft thing) - but it's also somewhat ridiculous to spend a few hundred to prosecute someone and jail them for a few days because they stole something worth $3.
  #59  
Old 04-18-2019, 10:06 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Generally speaking (although I certainly can't speak for this DA) , policies like this have less to do with letting people who need necessities steal them and more to do with the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. Let's say for example that someone steals a can of powdered formula that goes for about $50. They stole only one can, so it's unlikely to be for resale. He or she is arrested and prosecuted and spends a few days in jail for the offense. How much does that cost? I know in my city , the jail charges over $200 per day for detaining people for other jurisdictions because that's how much it costs them. And the police officer who is processing the arrest and comes to court may be on overtime for part of it. Even if it's not overtime, that's time taken away from his or her other duties. And that's not even accounting for other costs - maybe some family member loses their job because the person in jail can't provide child -care anymore and so on .

I don't agree with everything as written in that document ( especially the $750 theft thing) - but it's also somewhat ridiculous to spend a few hundred to prosecute someone and jail them for a few days because they stole something worth $3.
The DA's thinking may be sound, but his mistake is publishing the fact. He could have just circulated this policy as an internal memo, but instead broadcast to the public at large that thefts of under $750 would not be prosecuted.

Last edited by Velocity; 04-18-2019 at 10:07 AM.
  #60  
Old 04-18-2019, 10:09 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The DA's thinking may be sound, but his mistake is publishing the fact. He could have just circulated this policy as an internal memo, but instead broadcast to the public at large that thefts of under $750 would not be prosecuted.
The DA serves the public. The police serve the public. Having them operate in the shadows seems more problematic to me.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #61  
Old 04-18-2019, 11:56 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Generally speaking (although I certainly can't speak for this DA) , policies like this have less to do with letting people who need necessities steal them and more to do with the costs of arresting and prosecuting them.
I guess the problem as I see it is that as a public service, they're sort of bound to do stuff that may not be profitable or financially sensible, but are for the public good. Law enforcement, fire fighting and criminal prosecution all fall under this umbrella- I'm sure that some huge percentage of fires cost more to put out than they caused in damage, but nobody's advocating that the fire department only come put out fires above a certain size.

This policy seems like it's basically a license for poor people to go try and rob Wal-Mart blind for necessities, whether or not they're actually in a position to NEED to steal for those necessities.

Look at it this way- if you're a person of questionable morals suffering tight times, and you need laundry detergent, are you going to spend $16 of the cash you have to buy it, or will you go try and lift a bottle from somewhere, knowing that there will be no consequences even if you are caught? I suspect unless you're particularly honorable, you'll just go steal your detergent.

It seems to me that a better approach would have been to have made a guideline to be applied in a case-by-case basis- something along the lines of "We're not in the business of prosecuting people who are stealing just to get by.", rather than publishing it in such a prominent fashion with a specific dollar amount.

It strikes me very much as some kind of political virtue signaling. And the funny part is that I'm not at all against the bail reform or the weed-related stuff. That stuff makes sense, but this theft and criminal trespass stuff seem very much like political grandstanding to me, and in a way that might be detrimental to the county. I mean, he as much as says so in the first sentences of the section on criminal trespass- paraphrasing, he says that we shouldn't be jailing the homeless, and that the county won't be prosecuting these, and that the homeless are someone else's problem.
  #62  
Old 04-18-2019, 01:28 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I guess the problem as I see it is that as a public service, they're sort of bound to do stuff that may not be profitable or financially sensible, but are for the public good. Law enforcement, fire fighting and criminal prosecution all fall under this umbrella- I'm sure that some huge percentage of fires cost more to put out than they caused in damage, but nobody's advocating that the fire department only come put out fires above a certain size.
I'm actually pretty sure your're wrong about the fires - but maybe that's because I wasn't clear enough. Whether you agree with these policies or not, the thinking behind them is to look at all of the costs - not just the cost to the victim of the stolen items, but also the cost to society of arrest/prosecution/incarceration , the cost of that person losing their job over an arrest and going on welfare , all of those things. Just like the cost-benefit analysis of putting out a small fire includes not only the little bit of damage actually caused but also the potential for it to spread and cause more damages and injury and possibly death.


Quote:
It seems to me that a better approach would have been to have made a guideline to be applied in a case-by-case basis- something along the lines of "We're not in the business of prosecuting people who are stealing just to get by.", rather than publishing it in such a prominent fashion with a specific dollar amount.

It strikes me very much as some kind of political virtue signaling. And the funny part is that I'm not at all against the bail reform or the weed-related stuff. That stuff makes sense, but this theft and criminal trespass stuff seem very much like political grandstanding to me, and in a way that might be detrimental to the county. I mean, he as much as says so in the first sentences of the section on criminal trespass- paraphrasing, he says that we shouldn't be jailing the homeless, and that the county won't be prosecuting these, and that the homeless are someone else's problem.
I agree that the guidelines should have been more general , which would have made it clear that determinations would be made on a case by case basis.
  #63  
Old 04-18-2019, 01:45 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
I wouldn't think so. Inherent in the role of prosecutor (indeed, one of the key obligations) is the discretion to determine which cases to bring and which not to bring. No reason you can't do that through a blanket policy. If the people don't like it, they can vote you out... or move.
I disagree. Prosecutorial discretion should be on a case by case basis and not by a blanket policy.

The people vote for legislators to make policy and for prosecutors to enforce it. As nice as it sounds to give someone a break for stealing a needed pack of baby formula for their starving child, the public has already voted to allocate tax dollars to buy poor women baby formula. The public has allocated money for food stamps, clothing vouchers, and other programs to provide necessities.

The idea that we need to, in effect, decriminalize theft of small amounts of "necessities" ignores the fact that we already provide them and it makes these shop owners foot the bill for it, and as others have noted, resort to violence when there cannot be justice in the courts.
  #64  
Old 04-18-2019, 02:03 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
{...} The public has allocated money for {...} clothing vouchers, {...}
What? Where?

CMC fnord!
  #65  
Old 04-18-2019, 03:17 PM
dzeiger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Frisco, Tx
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post

The people vote for legislators to make policy and for prosecutors to enforce it. As nice as it sounds to give someone a break for stealing a needed pack of baby formula for their starving child, the public has already voted to allocate tax dollars to buy poor women baby formula. The public has allocated money for food stamps, clothing vouchers, and other programs to provide necessities.

But the DA is also an elected position, and IIRC, this is the kind of thing he said he'd do if he was elected.
  #66  
Old 04-18-2019, 09:56 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzeiger View Post
But the DA is also an elected position, and IIRC, this is the kind of thing he said he'd do if he was elected.
Agreed, but it is still a separation of powers issue, and the only way the system works is to have respect for the other branches. Both the legislative and the executive have shown absolute deference to the judicial branch, for example.

If the people of Texas do not want the theft of goods under $750 (defined as necessities) to be criminally punished, then that is something properly left to the Legislature and not an individual prosecutor. Further, it is something that even a person on the losing side in Dallas has a right to be protected against. A shopkeeper in Dallas has as much right to have his property protected in TX as a shopkeeper in another county in TX. Counties are not separate sovereigns.

When you use bright lines in your "discretion" chances are that you are not really using discretion but abusing it. I could understand a prosecutor looking at two cases of theft, looking at the individuals and the facts of the case, and deciding to seek a minimal sentence for one and a maximum for another. But to have two cases and say that the first person stole things valued at $740 and the second things valued at $760 and treat them differently, that seems arbitrary and capricious to me if done solely for exceeding his decreed limit.
  #67  
Old 04-19-2019, 08:48 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,304
I actually read an article in the Dallas Observer (the local alternative paper) about this subject. The author contends that Creuzot's guidelines are based on "dense research", but doesn't go on to cite that research. And the Observer is admittedly biased- it's got a definite progressive/liberal slant.

That said, I'm not against the idea of research-based policies, but everything I've read goes back to the idea that we should put the person who steals for necessities ahead of the need to have effective anti-stealing laws. I'm not sure which is the right way to go- is it better to screw one poor person over in the prevention of a dozen petty thefts, or is it better to have those petty thefts, and have the shopowners eat that cost, if it lets one person have their necessities and not get jailed for it? I'm kind of torn here- neither one is a good outcome in my book.
  #68  
Old 04-19-2019, 09:02 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I'm not sure which is the right way to go- is it better to screw one poor person over in the prevention of a dozen petty thefts, or is it better to have those petty thefts, and have the shopowners eat that cost, if it lets one person have their necessities and not get jailed for it? I'm kind of torn here- neither one is a good outcome in my book.
To me the most obvious answer would be to allow the shopkeepers to bill the county for losses. Why should they bear the burden of a societal problem? Contrary to popular belief, owning a business is not a license to print money.
  #69  
Old 04-19-2019, 12:55 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
...

What he's saying seems absurd- the implication might be that I could just walk into a retail store and walk out with ANYTHING under $750, and they wouldn't prosecute me, as long as I intended to keep it for myself. Or that property owners have no recourse against homeless people who come and hang out on their place, driving business away and abusing the facilities, etc...

Am I misunderstanding? Is this really what the Democratic party wants? I voted for this guy, but now I'm thinking maybe that was a mistake.
Well, how much does it cost to lock someone up for a nite, get them to post bail, the prosecute them? A LOT more than $750.

And so you prosecute a homeless person- how are they gonna pay the fines? Or are you just gonna fill up the jails with people and give them free room and board?
  #70  
Old 04-19-2019, 12:56 PM
Mdcastle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,093
I think he's gone way to far. If you steal a stick a gum you should go to jail and get a nice little criminal record. Maybe that will teach you not to steal gum in the future.

Dallas has apparently decided to elect someone that doesn't want to do his job: prosecute criminals. Did they realize that they were in effect passing a law that you can go into the store and take whatever you want for free as long as its under $750 and you don't need a license to drive?

Last edited by Mdcastle; 04-19-2019 at 12:59 PM.
  #71  
Old 04-19-2019, 01:12 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I actually read an article in the Dallas Observer (the local alternative paper) about this subject. The author contends that Creuzot's guidelines are based on "dense research", but doesn't go on to cite that research. And the Observer is admittedly biased- it's got a definite progressive/liberal slant.

That said, I'm not against the idea of research-based policies, but everything I've read goes back to the idea that we should put the person who steals for necessities ahead of the need to have effective anti-stealing laws. I'm not sure which is the right way to go- is it better to screw one poor person over in the prevention of a dozen petty thefts, or is it better to have those petty thefts, and have the shopowners eat that cost, if it lets one person have their necessities and not get jailed for it? I'm kind of torn here- neither one is a good outcome in my book.
But again, what are these necessities that poor people need to steal? Don't the taxpayers provide a social safety net? Everyone is talking like we are in a Charles Dickens novel with a poor thief who is stealing bread to feed his family. Use the EBT card.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
To me the most obvious answer would be to allow the shopkeepers to bill the county for losses. Why should they bear the burden of a societal problem? Contrary to popular belief, owning a business is not a license to print money.
QFT. As a small business owner I know the full extent of how the government thinks that it can just keep imposing taxes and requirements because it absolves itself of having to do it and the rest of the public thinks that business owners are all Bill Gates that can afford it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Well, how much does it cost to lock someone up for a nite, get them to post bail, the prosecute them? A LOT more than $750.

And so you prosecute a homeless person- how are they gonna pay the fines? Or are you just gonna fill up the jails with people and give them free room and board?
That isn't the right analysis or else everyone could commit crimes up to the cost of a night in jail and the cost of prosecution.

The idea is not that we prosecute crimes so that we can recoup the economic cost associated with them. Many crimes have no economic component. The idea is to prosecute these crimes to deter future crimes so that we don't have a thousand more just like it.

For people too poor to pay fines, community service is an option.
  #72  
Old 04-19-2019, 01:26 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
I..

For example, knowing that Samsung has many tv's for less than $750, the natural reaction to this new approach is for anyone that feels like it to go to Costco and walk out with a $500 tv. I doubt the lady checking receipts at the door will be able to stop you.
She certainly can stop you. She can take the TV away. If you resist her, then that's assault, a violent crime, and that will be prosecuted.
  #73  
Old 04-19-2019, 01:46 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But again, what are these necessities that poor people need to steal? Don't the taxpayers provide a social safety net? Everyone is talking like we are in a Charles Dickens novel with a poor thief who is stealing bread to feed his family. Use the EBT card.
Depending on who you are and where you are, maybe, maybe not. An EBT card that only has food-stamp dollars on it cannot be used to buy diapers, no matter how badly you need the diapers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That isn't the right analysis or else everyone could commit crimes up to the cost of a night in jail and the cost of prosecution.

The idea is not that we prosecute crimes so that we can recoup the economic cost associated with them. Many crimes have no economic component. The idea is to prosecute these crimes to deter future crimes so that we don't have a thousand more just like it.
The amount of money available to prosecute, however, is not unlimited. If the system is spending vast sums to prosecute every possible crime, something somewhere is being shorted to pay for it. That something might be oversight to prevent abuses, it might be more vigorous prosecution of more serious offenses, it might be something else, but it is SOMETHING. In Dallas's case, the DA is making explicit what choices are being made and what is being shorted; in many other offices, that information is not readily accessible to the public, but you can bet that the local defense counsel, the local police, and probably the local criminals know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
For people too poor to pay fines, community service is an option.
No, it's not some magic option for everybody. I worked in a community organization that was a recipient of "community service" hours; we stopped participating a long time ago because we weren't interested in having a whole lot of extra expense dumped on us. The time/money spent in training, supervising, and doing paperwork on these folks was substantially higher than the value of what they contributed (considered in aggregate--some individual workers were fine, some were valuable, and a huge percentage were deadweight). The notion that the system can get rid of the problem of unaffordable fines by simply dumping people onto community organizations to "work it off" is ridiculous.
  #74  
Old 04-19-2019, 03:51 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But again, what are these necessities that poor people need to steal? Don't the taxpayers provide a social safety net? Everyone is talking like we are in a Charles Dickens novel with a poor thief who is stealing bread to feed his family. Use the EBT card.




QFT. As a small business owner I know the full extent of how the government thinks that it can just keep imposing taxes and requirements because it absolves itself of having to do it and the rest of the public thinks that business owners are all Bill Gates that can afford it.




That isn't the right analysis or else everyone could commit crimes up to the cost of a night in jail and the cost of prosecution.

The idea is not that we prosecute crimes so that we can recoup the economic cost associated with them. Many crimes have no economic component. The idea is to prosecute these crimes to deter future crimes so that we don't have a thousand more just like it.

For people too poor to pay fines, community service is an option.
I disagree on the many crimes have no economic component. I'd say all theft has an economic component. Crimes of violence against people also do. Crimes against property likewise. Littering costs society to pick it up. Even jaywalking if I have to stop my car for you cost me gas. I'm sure there may be some crimes that don't have an economic component but I really don't believe many crimes don't have an economic component.
  #75  
Old 04-19-2019, 08:50 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She certainly can stop you. She can take the TV away. If you resist her, then that's assault, a violent crime, and that will be prosecuted.
If an employee tries to physically stop a shoplifter, the employee is the one who is guilty of assault. If the shoplifter resists, it's self defense. Remember Trayvon Martin? Only law enforcement should be stopping criminals not vigilantes.

Last edited by LAZombie; 04-19-2019 at 08:51 PM.
  #76  
Old 04-19-2019, 09:21 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,312
I'm not in favor of not prosecuting any crimes under a certain amount or not prosecuting trespass cases. That isn't a "Democrat" position that I'm aware of and if it was, I'd be fighting it.

To me, the disparity is the difference in prosecution and sentencing. A poor person can be railroaded through the system and be given a stiff sentence because they lack money for their defense and it is easy for some asshole to make himself appear 'tough on crime' by making an example of someone who can't defend themselves. Unfortunately, a rich person can commit the same crime and either not be prosecuted or negotiate a slap on the wrist because they CAN afford to mount a defense and the prosecutor has to look at his budget. Or in the case of a celebrity, sign a couple of autographs, take some pictures with the star-struck judge or prosecutor and have the charges dropped.

Steal $20 at gunpoint, get 20 years in jail. Steal hundreds of thousands through creative bookkeeping or stealing from your clients and you get days in jail, community service or a brief probation. The difference between those is a huge injustice.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #77  
Old 04-19-2019, 09:23 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
If an employee tries to physically stop a shoplifter, the employee is the one who is guilty of assault. If the shoplifter resists, it's self defense. Remember Trayvon Martin? Only law enforcement should be stopping criminals not vigilantes.
Actually, same with security guards. Whatever they may personally think, they're NOT police and they cannot touch you or forcibly detain you. If they do, sue the ever loving fuck out of them and the company that employs them. That is, if you can afford to do so.
__________________
Tentatively and lightly dipping my toes back in the water.
  #78  
Old 04-19-2019, 10:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Actually, same with security guards. Whatever they may personally think, they're NOT police and they cannot touch you or forcibly detain you. If they do, sue the ever loving fuck out of them and the company that employs them. That is, if you can afford to do so.
According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_loss_prevention

Quote:
State laws vary and allow business owners or representatives of the company to detain shoplifters with "reasonable force" for a "reasonable amount of time" until law enforcement arrives. Several companies have designated trained individuals who are allowed to detain shoplifters according to company policy.
  #79  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:28 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
If an employee tries to physically stop a shoplifter, the employee is the one who is guilty of assault. If the shoplifter resists, it's self defense. Remember Trayvon Martin? Only law enforcement should be stopping criminals not vigilantes.
The employee can stand in their way, and even use some force.

And in general, Police never arrest a shoplifter as he is leaving the store with merchandise. she shopkeeper does and detains until the police arrive:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sh...ers-privilege/
Shopkeepers Privilege refers to a common law privilege given to shopkeepers whereby they can detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time. This can be done only if the shopkeeper has reason to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.

In order to avail the privilege, the proprietor or agent must ensure that:

1. The investigation is conducted near or on the premises; the detention itself should be effected either on the store premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof.

2. The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained engaged in shoplifting.

3. Only reasonable, nondeadly force is used to effect the detention. Such force being justified when the suspect is in immediate flight or violently resists detention.

4. The detention lasts only for a short period of time necessary to make a reasonable investigation of the facts

In cases where a shopkeeper fails to satisfy the aforementioned requisite conditions, s/he loses the privilege and may be held liable. Likewise if the shopkeeper exceeds the bounds of this privilege and makes an arrest, the lawfulness of his/her action will be determined by the jurisdiction's rules governing arrest by a private citizen.


https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supre...t/1299052.html

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-20-2019 at 03:32 PM.
  #80  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:34 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
That is how it is handled every day, thousands of times a day, in every state. Not being a "vigilante".

I mean, if they called the police as the thief was leaving the store, by the time the police got there, the thief would be long gone.
  #81  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:36 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
Actually, same with security guards. Whatever they may personally think, they're NOT police and they cannot touch you or forcibly detain you. If they do, sue the ever loving fuck out of them and the company that employs them. That is, if you can afford to do so.
Yes, they may legally detain you under shopkeepers privilege. And use some force. They may also perform a citizen's arrest, especially if you are being a clear and present danger to the public safety- in which case they may even shoot you.

So, you are wrong, Security guards can, in some cases, touch you or forcibly detain you- even kill you. But not simply to ask you to leave, for example.
  #82  
Old 04-20-2019, 11:46 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
I'm not in favor of not prosecuting any crimes under a certain amount or not prosecuting trespass cases. That isn't a "Democrat" position that I'm aware of and if it was, I'd be fighting it.

To me, the disparity is the difference in prosecution and sentencing. A poor person can be railroaded through the system and be given a stiff sentence because they lack money for their defense and it is easy for some asshole to make himself appear 'tough on crime' by making an example of someone who can't defend themselves. Unfortunately, a rich person can commit the same crime and either not be prosecuted or negotiate a slap on the wrist because they CAN afford to mount a defense and the prosecutor has to look at his budget. Or in the case of a celebrity, sign a couple of autographs, take some pictures with the star-struck judge or prosecutor and have the charges dropped.

Steal $20 at gunpoint, get 20 years in jail. Steal hundreds of thousands through creative bookkeeping or stealing from your clients and you get days in jail, community service or a brief probation. The difference between those is a huge injustice.
You bring up some very good points about problems with the justice system, but the answer is reform, not legalizing petty theft. Let's take this $750 threshold, but if your threshold would be lower, then substitute your number.

Are you saying that I can rob the entire world blind so long as I do it $749 at a time? Because it seems as if that is what this DA is saying. Sure, he said "necessities" so I can't be stealing electronics and such (depending on his definition, as we have government cell phones now) but I could definitely cover all my basic living expenses on the backs of whatever store I want to. Is that remotely fair?
  #83  
Old 04-21-2019, 12:46 AM
Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
If an employee tries to physically stop a shoplifter, the employee is the one who is guilty of assault. If the shoplifter resists, it's self defense. Remember Trayvon Martin? Only law enforcement should be stopping criminals not vigilantes.
Yes, remember him -- Trayvon Martin died. And the the jury acquitted the neighborhood watch officer who shot him.

When I worked in a retail store (decades ago), we were told that we could restrain a thief, and prevent them from leaving until the cops got there, but we should use the minimum amount of force needed to restrain them. But we could certainly lay hands on someone, and even tie them up if need be. At least once, I locked the front door of the store until others could restrain a thief, even though that locked other customers inside the store.

In my experience, the people doing this are not stealing food or 'necessities', but higher priced items, usually ones that can be easily re-sold. And the people doing this, based on how fast they can run away or how strongly they can resist arrest, are not disabled, but quite able-bodied. People who should be able to do a good days work.

Personally, I think we need less jail and more chain gangs out fixing potholes and other strenuous community service. And we should have programs like FDR's WPA & CCC again. We have lots of crumbling infrastructure in our country that needs fixing, and lots of unemployed people who could do that, fed & housed while doing it, and sometimes even learning a useful trade.
  #84  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:16 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net View Post
Personally, I think we need less jail and more chain gangs out fixing potholes and other strenuous community service. And we should have programs like FDR's WPA & CCC again. We have lots of crumbling infrastructure in our country that needs fixing, and lots of unemployed people who could do that, fed & housed while doing it, and sometimes even learning a useful trade.
Do you really want your potholes fixed and your infrastructure repaired by a group of people who really don't want to be doing the job, really don't care if the job gets done in a workmanlike manner, and are very likely to be mentally ill or on drugs (or both)?

The WPA and the CCC succeeded precisely because a lot of people were looking for work. Today, a distressingly high percentage of the people in jail (not all of them, certainly, but a big chunk) are there precisely because they DON'T want to work and/or they have no ability to work. The largest providers of psychiatric services in the United States today are the nation's prisons and jails; those same institutions are awash in illegal drugs. Does this sound like the workforce you want to entrust with any job that is important to you?

(Even in the days of yore, the chain gangs didn't do much work efficiently and cost-effectively. Chain gangs served as punishment and they kept prisoners busy, but by the heyday of the chain gangs in the first half of the 20th century, machinery could break big rocks into little rocks quicker and cheaper than a chain gang could. )
  #85  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:47 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You bring up some very good points about problems with the justice system, but the answer is reform, not legalizing petty theft. Let's take this $750 threshold, but if your threshold would be lower, then substitute your number.

Are you saying that I can rob the entire world blind so long as I do it $749 at a time? Because it seems as if that is what this DA is saying. Sure, he said "necessities" so I can't be stealing electronics and such (depending on his definition, as we have government cell phones now) but I could definitely cover all my basic living expenses on the backs of whatever store I want to. Is that remotely fair?
No. Here's what will happen. What happens every day all over America. Store security will detain you. They will take the item away. The police will come, handcuff you take you to jail and book you. In the morning they will likely cite you and release you without bond. You will owe a fine. The DA will not prosecute unless you are part of a shoplifting gang.

if you dont pay the fine they will issues a bench warrant and you will be guilty. If you do pay the fine, you will be guilty. If you show up in court to fight the citation, the DA wont show up to contest, however in Dallas, that's the difference. But the cop and shopkeeper might, as in Traffic court. IANAL, YMMV.

Even if they dont, you have been detained, the goods taken away, arrested , handcuffed, taken to jail, booked and released.


What do you think they do for a low end non-gang shoplifter in another state, maybe the shoplifter steals the ubiquitous loaf of bread? Do you think the DA prosecutes and spends 1000's of $ on that penny ante case? Nope.
  #86  
Old Yesterday, 12:12 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No. Here's what will happen. What happens every day all over America. Store security will detain you. They will take the item away. The police will come, handcuff you take you to jail and book you. In the morning they will likely cite you and release you without bond. You will owe a fine. The DA will not prosecute unless you are part of a shoplifting gang.

if you dont pay the fine they will issues a bench warrant and you will be guilty. If you do pay the fine, you will be guilty. If you show up in court to fight the citation, the DA wont show up to contest, however in Dallas, that's the difference. But the cop and shopkeeper might, as in Traffic court. IANAL, YMMV.

Even if they dont, you have been detained, the goods taken away, arrested , handcuffed, taken to jail, booked and released.


What do you think they do for a low end non-gang shoplifter in another state, maybe the shoplifter steals the ubiquitous loaf of bread? Do you think the DA prosecutes and spends 1000's of $ on that penny ante case? Nope.
I was kind of curious how it was going to work, but this clears it up nicely. Thanks!
  #87  
Old Yesterday, 01:45 PM
amarinth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
If the goal is to make sure people that are in need get their basic necessities, doesn't it make more sense to provide them using some alternate method so you don't open the floodgates for the people that would abuse it?
I don't think that's the goal.

I think the goal is to allocate limited resources. There was a recent story here (Seattle) about theft for necessities ($70ish) and the costs to the system (several thousand for jail and prosecutorial resources - not to mention the opportunity costs from spending time on this rather than more serious crimes). My guess is that this DA is saying he'd rather spend the people's money and time elsewhere than on people who are stealing smallish amounts of food & clothing. There are strong arguments against that idea. But it does make a certain amount of sense.
  #88  
Old Yesterday, 05:09 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No. Here's what will happen. What happens every day all over America. Store security will detain you. They will take the item away. The police will come, handcuff you take you to jail and book you. In the morning they will likely cite you and release you without bond. You will owe a fine. The DA will not prosecute unless you are part of a shoplifting gang.

if you dont pay the fine they will issues a bench warrant and you will be guilty. If you do pay the fine, you will be guilty. If you show up in court to fight the citation, the DA wont show up to contest, however in Dallas, that's the difference. But the cop and shopkeeper might, as in Traffic court. IANAL, YMMV.

Even if they dont, you have been detained, the goods taken away, arrested , handcuffed, taken to jail, booked and released.


What do you think they do for a low end non-gang shoplifter in another state, maybe the shoplifter steals the ubiquitous loaf of bread? Do you think the DA prosecutes and spends 1000's of $ on that penny ante case? Nope.
I'm not following much of this. If the DA does not prosecute, then why does the shoplifter owe a fine? If the DA is not prosecuting, why is there a court date for the DA to fail to show up at? And if the DA is not prosecuting, the cop or the shopkeeper can show up as much as they want, but it will not do any good if there is no case being prosecuted.

As far as the low-end out of state shoplifter, in my state he would post a small bond and get a court date. If he fails to show, a warrant for his arrest will be put in the system, very likely with a "do not extradite" tag on it. If he ever comes back to my state, he will be picked up, but if not, he won't. There will not be an FBI manhunt begun.

Yes, it is probably unlikely that anyone will see justice out of that incident, but that doesn't mean we roll out the red carpet for them either.
  #89  
Old Yesterday, 05:58 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not following much of this. If the DA does not prosecute, then why does the shoplifter owe a fine? If the DA is not prosecuting, why is there a court date for the DA to fail to show up at? And if the DA is not prosecuting, the cop or the shopkeeper can show up as much as they want, but it will not do any good if there is no case being prosecuted.

As far as the low-end out of state shoplifter, in my state he would post a small bond and get a court date. If he fails to show, a warrant for his arrest will be put in the system, very likely with a "do not extradite" tag on it. If he ever comes back to my state, he will be picked up, but if not, he won't. .....
Why do you owe a fine for a traffic ticket even if the DA doesnt file charges? They turn it into a minor crime that is fixed by a citation, not a arraignment.

Have you ever been to traffic court? In most areas, no DA. The Judge is the DA, etc. The cop is the witness. It's like that. YMMV. Of course then it is usually listed as a Infraction, not a Misdemeanor.

IANL, and the system differs more than fifty ways (in some states, each county has a different system). I am not sure how they will handle it in Dallas. Ask them!

And so- warrants? For low end misdemeanors? When the police have a large pile of felony warrants unserved?

How much does it cost to arrest, book, keep in jail one nite, arraign, release on bail, issue warrant, have a trial, etc? Tens of thousands.

Last edited by DrDeth; Yesterday at 05:58 PM.
  #90  
Old Yesterday, 09:13 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,965
Here in New York City, the City government has decided that subway (or bus) fare evasion will no longer be prosecuted.

The upshot of this is that one can watch, at pretty much any subway stop in the city, a steady parade of people going over, under and around the turnstiles without paying any fare. Sometimes in full view of police officers. The subway stop nearest my home in Brooklyn has two police officers stationed at the main entrance at all times. It is not physically possible that they do not see that a significant percentage of people are not paying the fare (in my estimation, depending on the time of day, anywhere from 20%, at a minimum, to close to half, at certain times of day, like when schools let out). And my observation, around the city, is that my station is pretty typical. So I infer that the NYPD has been directed not to make arrests or issue summonses for fare evasion.

Now, it may be that someone (perhaps the five county DAs) decided that fare evasion arrests/summonses unfairly burdened members of minority groups, and so should not be prosecuted.

However, the upshot is that those who pay the fare, all the time, feel like they're making a charitable contribution, and begin to get disgruntled. I mean, why should I pay the fare?

This is not a good policy in the long run. It will inevitably lead to unrest and a backlash.
  #91  
Old Yesterday, 10:41 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why do you owe a fine for a traffic ticket even if the DA doesnt file charges? They turn it into a minor crime that is fixed by a citation, not a arraignment.

Have you ever been to traffic court? In most areas, no DA. The Judge is the DA, etc. The cop is the witness. It's like that. YMMV. Of course then it is usually listed as a Infraction, not a Misdemeanor.

IANL, and the system differs more than fifty ways (in some states, each county has a different system). I am not sure how they will handle it in Dallas. Ask them!

And so- warrants? For low end misdemeanors? When the police have a large pile of felony warrants unserved?

How much does it cost to arrest, book, keep in jail one nite, arraign, release on bail, issue warrant, have a trial, etc? Tens of thousands.
It is true that each state has its own procedure, but I didn't see anything in the article where petty theft would now be a civil infraction like a traffic ticket is in many (most?) jurisdictions. The D.A. wouldn't have that power anyways. He has stated that he will not prosecute people who steal "necessities" less than $750, so if the police arrest a person who fits that bill, the person will see the charges dismissed. It is a misdemeanor crime that is to be dealt with by the D.A. The shopkeeper or the police officer cannot show up and demand that the matter be prosecuted. That is in the "discretion" of the D.A.

The reason why you pay a traffic ticket without the filing of charges is because by paying you have agreed to plead guilty and to forego whatever due process the state has provided to hear your side of the dispute, whether that be a jury trial or a hearing in front of a hearing officer. It is a sufficiently harmless activity that society larger feels that it can be dealt with without a full custodial arrest. And, possibly because of that, you see wide open violations of that law every day. However, if you decide simply to ignore the ticket, things will eventually turn into a custodial arrest if you keep ignoring it.

And this whole idea that we should figure out the cost of prosecution versus the economic harm for the crime and not have the conduct illegal if cost exceed individual act is not the correct one. Just like the subway fare evasion in the post above mine, the problem is that once you decide not to prosecute, then instances of that thing that society has deemed to be harmful begins to increase.

Further, the economic harm argument is not how we decide the severity of crime. If I shoot at someone and miss, and the bullet lodges in the ground doing absolutely no economic damage, I know that you wouldn't argue that I should go home.

Likewise, the reason we prosecute shoplifting, even for small dollar amounts, is not that a store will go bankrupt because I stole a candy bar, but because the action of stealing a candy bar, repeated hundreds or thousands of times will cause real societal harm, foster an attitude about shoplifting which is undesirable, and lead to vigilante justice when a shopkeeper knows that he has no remedy in court. That is one of the basic reasons for courts and law: so that people do not resort to violence in the streets to redress their harms.

Last edited by UltraVires; Yesterday at 10:42 PM.
  #92  
Old Yesterday, 10:53 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And this whole idea that we should figure out the cost of prosecution versus the economic harm for the crime and not have the conduct illegal if cost exceed individual act is not the correct one. Just like the subway fare evasion in the post above mine, the problem is that once you decide not to prosecute, then instances of that thing that society has deemed to be harmful begins to increase.

Further, the economic harm argument is not how we decide the severity of crime. If I shoot at someone and miss, and the bullet lodges in the ground doing absolutely no economic damage, I know that you wouldn't argue that I should go home.

Likewise, the reason we prosecute shoplifting, even for small dollar amounts, is not that a store will go bankrupt because I stole a candy bar, but because the action of stealing a candy bar, repeated hundreds or thousands of times will cause real societal harm, foster an attitude about shoplifting which is undesirable, and lead to vigilante justice when a shopkeeper knows that he has no remedy in court. That is one of the basic reasons for courts and law: so that people do not resort to violence in the streets to redress their harms.
Couldn't we determine the deterrent effect of punishment by measuring it, and use that to decide how much to punish crimes?

Suppose someone steals $1000 worth of goods, and the cost to jail them for 3 months is $5000. But by jailing them, in equilibrium, 9 other thefts are prevented. This would mean that you've saved 10k in theft for a 5k cost. Clearly a good idea.

Using this math, obviously, a 2 year sentence doesn't add up. It's costing more than you are saving, even factoring in the deterrent effect. (you give 2 year sentences, each sentence costs you 20k to carry out, but you save 10k in theft again).

Well, longer sentences might have more of a deterrent effect, but I suspect it's not at all linear. So a 2 year sentence might mean you deter 11 thefts instead of 10.

Just saying that the economic harm argument isn't as bad as it sounds.

As for the bullet that didn't hit someone but could have: well, if a person's life is worth 10 million dollars, and there was a 1% chance of a random shot in an urban area killing someone, then you have a 100k budget to punish. Plus the deterrent effect. In that case, I guess a ~5 year sentence makes sense.

Different numbers will give you different outcomes, but what I am saying is that it's not totally untenable to estimate the cost of a crime and compare it to the costs of punishment and work out some sort of reasonable cost-benefit policy.

This would be evidence based criminal justice. Seems like a rational thing to do to me.

Last edited by SamuelA; Yesterday at 10:54 PM.
  #93  
Old Yesterday, 11:04 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,789
[QUOTE=UltraVires;21603862]It is true that each state has its own procedure, but I didn't see anything in the article where petty theft would now be a civil infraction like a traffic ticket is in many (most?) jurisdictions. The D.A. wouldn't have that power anyways. He has stated that he will not prosecute people who steal "necessities" less than $750, so if the police arrest a person who fits that bill, the person will see the charges dismissed. It is a misdemeanor crime that is to be dealt with by the D.A. The shopkeeper or the police officer cannot show up and demand that the matter be prosecuted. That is in the "discretion" of the D.A.....Likewise, the reason we prosecute shoplifting, even for small dollar amounts, is not that a store will go bankrupt because I stole a candy bar, but because the action of stealing a candy bar, repeated hundreds or thousands of times will cause real societal harm, foster an attitude about shoplifting which is undesirable, and lead to vigilante justice when a shopkeeper knows that he has no remedy in court. That is one of the basic reasons for courts and law: so that people do not resort to violence in the streets to redress their harms./QUOTE]

If you have studied the law carefully in that city and County and States, - Ok. You're a lawyer then?

But in any case, the perp has had the goods taken, been handcuffed, taken to the station cited and released. What did they get away with? They didnt get the goods. They got detained, they got handcuffed, etc.

The storekeeper can detain the perp, the good can be confiscated, the police can come and handcuff and arrest... etc.

How many 5$ candy bar shoplifting cases do you think got prosecuted before this? Got any stats?
  #94  
Old Today, 12:32 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Couldn't we determine the deterrent effect of punishment by measuring it, and use that to decide how much to punish crimes?

Suppose someone steals $1000 worth of goods, and the cost to jail them for 3 months is $5000. But by jailing them, in equilibrium, 9 other thefts are prevented. This would mean that you've saved 10k in theft for a 5k cost. Clearly a good idea.

Using this math, obviously, a 2 year sentence doesn't add up. It's costing more than you are saving, even factoring in the deterrent effect. (you give 2 year sentences, each sentence costs you 20k to carry out, but you save 10k in theft again).

Well, longer sentences might have more of a deterrent effect, but I suspect it's not at all linear. So a 2 year sentence might mean you deter 11 thefts instead of 10.

Just saying that the economic harm argument isn't as bad as it sounds.

As for the bullet that didn't hit someone but could have: well, if a person's life is worth 10 million dollars, and there was a 1% chance of a random shot in an urban area killing someone, then you have a 100k budget to punish. Plus the deterrent effect. In that case, I guess a ~5 year sentence makes sense.

Different numbers will give you different outcomes, but what I am saying is that it's not totally untenable to estimate the cost of a crime and compare it to the costs of punishment and work out some sort of reasonable cost-benefit policy.

This would be evidence based criminal justice. Seems like a rational thing to do to me.
Possibly. But it definitely wouldn't be universal. Let's say a murder victim was objectively a drain on society. He has no family, is on public assistance costing society money (and so there is no argument about this aspect of it, let's assume that we agree that it is not due to innocent circumstances--he is just a lazy, slothful guy) and he is just generally agreed by everyone to be a miserable shit of a guy and he will not be missed.

Do we not prosecute this murder because not only is it economical not to prosecute, but we really should reward the murderer in some way? I think you would agree not.

As far as the chances of hitting an innocent bystander in an urban area, should attempted murder be punished less in a rural area? A medium sentence in the suburbs? The crime is not the danger the shot posed to bystanders, but my intent to commit murder.

Further, the punishment doled out should reflect legitimate penological goals. If I steal video games at Target and punch the loss prevention employee on the way out, then I think we agree that should be punished.

The time spent in incarceration, though, should not reflect the economics of the situation. Some people who have a long criminal history and who continue to do these things should be punished harshly. But we could imagine a young person who was suffering from depression who acted out of character and committed this crime. The economics are the same, but the penalty should be different.

And that leaves aside questions about crimes like rape. If the victim is very resilient and requires no or little counseling, then the rapist gets a lighter sentence than if the victim has many bills? Or do we average these things out so that every criminal is looking at the same sentence. Average them out nationally or state or county wide?

I guess my point is that the economic aspect of the crime is a novel theory and should not be claimed to be the one true way of criminal justice.
  #95  
Old Today, 02:15 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Possibly. But it definitely wouldn't be universal. Let's say a murder victim was objectively a drain on society. He has no family, is on public assistance costing society money (and so there is no argument about this aspect of it, let's assume that we agree that it is not due to innocent circumstances--he is just a lazy, slothful guy) and he is just generally agreed by everyone to be a miserable shit of a guy and he will not be missed.

Do we not prosecute this murder because not only is it economical not to prosecute, but we really should reward the murderer in some way? I think you would agree not.

As far as the chances of hitting an innocent bystander in an urban area, should attempted murder be punished less in a rural area? A medium sentence in the suburbs? The crime is not the danger the shot posed to bystanders, but my intent to commit murder.

Further, the punishment doled out should reflect legitimate penological goals. If I steal video games at Target and punch the loss prevention employee on the way out, then I think we agree that should be punished.

The time spent in incarceration, though, should not reflect the economics of the situation. Some people who have a long criminal history and who continue to do these things should be punished harshly. But we could imagine a young person who was suffering from depression who acted out of character and committed this crime. The economics are the same, but the penalty should be different.

And that leaves aside questions about crimes like rape. If the victim is very resilient and requires no or little counseling, then the rapist gets a lighter sentence than if the victim has many bills? Or do we average these things out so that every criminal is looking at the same sentence. Average them out nationally or state or county wide?

I guess my point is that the economic aspect of the crime is a novel theory and should not be claimed to be the one true way of criminal justice.
These are interesting objections. And I don't necessarily have a direct answer for each case except to say that, in general, I feel that the best outcome is achieved by:

a. Measuring what really happens, with consistent and comprehensive data collection and analysis
b. Dispassionately decide on a policy what to do not by how individuals feel about a particular case, but on a systematic and predetermined set of optimizing criteria.
c. The policy deciding system should be flexible. Realistically you should be able to change sentences for people already in prison as new data comes in.

And a simple justification: you always have to choose. If you have finite money for criminal justice - or any effort - choosing to spend a lot of it on one case means less is spent elsewhere. It means for every criminal you excessively punish you're forced to let someone else off the hook, or let some other crime happen.

I don't think the present setup, where it's governed heavily by emotion and arbitrary power granted to DAs serves the interest of justice.
  #96  
Old Today, 08:51 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
However, the upshot is that those who pay the fare, all the time, feel like they're making a charitable contribution, and begin to get disgruntled. I mean, why should I pay the fare?
Because you shouldn't base your actions on the actions of others who are breaking the law?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017