Inspired by this report on the aftermath of the Winona Ryder conviction (scroll down about a third):
If a convicted shoplifter pays restitution (and I assume that restitution would be the price of the stolen item) why doesn’t the item belong to the shoplifter?
Winona damaged the items in question; she cut the identity tags off with scissors. If they could have been resold I’m guessing she wouldn’t have had to pay restituion. Saks is saying they can’t sell them now. I think they may have actually increased in value…“Look, I’m wearing the blouse Wynona shoplifted!” I say give them to Planet Hollywood.
As to why she can’t keep the damaged items, public policy, I suppose. She isn’t allowed to benefit in any way from her crime.
Gosh, you mean when I swiped and ate that candy bar and my mom made me go back to the store to admit what I had done and pay for it, the clerk could have made me hork up the chocolate on public policy grounds?
Seriously, though, I know that SCOTUS invalidated “Son of Sam” laws preventing criminals from profiting from book sales and the like on First Amendment grounds. So it’s not iron-clad that a criminal can never benefit from his crime (I realize the Constitution trumps “public policy” and that public policy is the last and slenderest of reeds on which to hang an argument). So I’m wondering if there’s some legal authority for a public policy argument.
If the items Winona stole were recovered undamaged, there would likely be no restitution ordered. When items are damaged, it is common to make the thief repay their value.
The reason that the thief never gets the items is that the thief never owns them. Winona isn’t buying the items, she is replacing the value of items she damaged in order to get the store to the position it was in before Winona committed a crime. It’s much the same if an intoxicated driver runs over your mailbox - that the driver must pay for a new one doesn’t make the new mailbox his.