I oppose it. I think it’s cruel and unnecessary.
I don’t see my question as a gotcha word game. “I have worked in child welfare for 23 years and have never seen a parent placed in jail for shoplifting,” seems like an improbable factual claim to me, to the extent it suggests that parents are never, or rarely, jailed for shoplifting… Does it ring true to you?
…where I live almost nobody is jailed for shoplifting. I’ve never heard of anyone getting jailed for shoplifting. Yeah, I live in another country. So can you clear this up once and for all? Rather than playing games, can you just tell us how often people go to jail for shoplifting in the United States, and for how long they typically go to jail for?
Because the claim “parents are never, or rarely, jailed for shoplifting” rings true for me. If it isn’t true, and if you are in the position to tell us that it isn’t true, then just tell us already.
Does it mean that the rest that you did not comment was also not accurate?
That issue you nitpick is IMHO also one of those “Two wrongs do not make it right” Poor people are beginning to be on many states to have their misdemeanors pumped up into higher crimes. Contributing to the breakdown of families that the high incarceration rates seen in this country are giving us. And it seems that the point of the poster that reported not seeing a shoplifter with family sent to jail is plausible because the policies being changed in some states is a recent development and until recently a first offence was not usually enough to send one to prison, it depends on some places where locals laws are harsher. And with changes in policies that are becoming draconian.
As for the matter at hand:
Trump, and many Republicans that you support, want this. It is a feature for them to see how the cruelty that they are unleashing, on purpose, is upsetting their “enemies”.
In my experience as a public defender, shoplifting was an extremely common charge, and resulted in jail (pre-trial detention but unable to make bail) and/or jail (sentence following conviction) fairly often when prior convictions were extant. In Virginia the shoplifting of goods valued at over $200 was a felony, although we’ve just this past year upped it to $500.
For first offenders, jail would be extremely unlikely.
Quite a few people who went to jail were parents.
Find The Right Lawyer. Learn About Your Legal Issue | Lawyers.com gives a pretty good rundown of the range of punishments for shoplifting:
I don’t really understand the point you’re making. But I can tell you that if Ellecram had said, “I have worked in child welfare for 23 years and have never seen a parent placed in jail for *a first offense of *shoplifting,” I would not have had any problem with the observation. It’s identical to my own experience: I also never saw anyone get jailed for a first offense.
But since “first offense,” was not part of Ellecram’s observation, I had to disagree.
That’s your link, and it’s titled: “12 years in jail for shoplifting: how Walmart is helping prosecutors hike up sentences.”
So you post a link that describes being jailed for shoplifting, and then complain about my objection to someone who posted that in 23 years, they had never seen a parent jailed for shoplifting?
Does the claim, “I have worked in child welfare for 23 years and have never seen a parent placed in jail for shoplifting,” seem like it’s a likely experience for most similarly-situated observers to have?
“Yeah, I guess taking babies from mothers is bad. Now let’s get back to what I want to talk about-the minute legal details about shoplifting penalties…”
Holy Deflection, Batman!
…thank you. 
Another question: do you think, that in your experience as a public defender, your perception of “what is extremely common” may possibly be skewed? By extremely common, can you give us some numbers?
To be fair, his latest post does help the discussion. The talking points used by the administration are a weapon. Being able to effectively counter them with the truth is what is needed, and if that means a few more posts about shoplifting so we can get things resolved then I think we should just get through it.
But in cases like this the point isn’t to “get through it”-the point is to use it to divert and tire out, then move on the next side issue. It’s a never-ending chain of vocabulary and/or legal nitpicks.
I suspect I was in a good position to perceive accurately. People arrested for shoplifting could either represent themselves, qualify for a public defender, or retain private counsel. I suppose a Commonwealth’s Attorney (the prosecutor in Virginia) would have been in a better position, but mine was the second-best vantage point.
When you say “numbers,” are you looking for totals I personally dealt with? Totals through the courts I worked? What?
But there’s no debate on the “taking babies from mothers is bad,” point. I agree with it. Is it your desire that we do a series of posts in which each participant repeats, in rotation, his affirmation of that point?
And when, if ever, is the time to address the likelihood of claims like, “I have worked in child welfare for 23 years and have never seen a parent placed in jail for shoplifting?” Does that claim get insulated from any review, ever?
…can you quantify “extremely common?” What you regard as “extremely common” and what I regard as “extremely common” maybe two different things. I think 5-10 cases a day. You might be thinking 1-2 case per week.
…its an anecdote Bricker, offered from the perspective of someone that works in a related field in some other part of the country. You’ve countered it with your own anecdote from a related field in your part of the country. I’m not in the position to dispute either anecdote, I’m taking you at your word, but at the same time I have no reason to doubt what Ellecram has said. You aren’t offering “review.” You have simply provided another anecdote.
I see.
Well, then I can say it was way closer to 1-3 shoplifting cases per week than 5-10 cases per day. As overworked as we all were, I don’t think any of my colleagues had an average of 5-10 shoplifting cases per day. Of course there were other, non-shoplifting cases as well.
But to my mind, if the claim under discussion is that “no parent” is ever seen to be jailed for shoplifting, then it seems that even 1-3 cases per week, and perhaps one per month getting a jail sentence, is enough to suggest that maybe NO CASES in 23 YEARS is a bit exaggerated.
Naturally, not all my cases involved parents. But equally naturally, not all of them involved childless people either. I can’t claim to have any kind of perfect recollection on this point, but a best-guess, highly rough estimate? One-fifth of my shoplifters were parents.
That’s a fair objection, but . . . 23 YEARS?? Not one case in 23 years??
Tell you what: I aver that for every state in the United States, I can cite at least one case of a parent jailed for shoplifting in the past 23 years. Pick a state. I’ll do the research.
To everyone rationalising this grotesque policy: the practice of unduly separating parents from their children has been a cornerstone of slavery, residential schooling and concentration camps. So when you’re making excuses for the abhorrent decision-making of this morally bankrupt administration, know which side of history you’re placing yourself on.
Also, realise that you’re championing children being left defenceless in the presence of child predators: Texas deputy sexually abused undocumented immigrant girl, 4, sheriff says - CBS News
These parent-free detention camps are a pedophile’s wet dream right now. Absolutely no system is in place to ensure that the kids aren’t being abused or neglected. These poor babies are really at the mercy of fate. But anything to keep those yucky illegals away, right?
8
But what I also pointed was: “Does it mean that the rest that you did not comment was also not accurate?”
And of course, Bricker does not bother to reply to that. I was only pointing out that as the first offence and having children does not usually lead to being incarcerated, that is relevant, attempting to omit it does make it then less likely that the poster he was nitpicking was reporting something that he observed. Looks to me like grasping at straws that I was not looking to give to Bricker.
Of course, the other item that Republicans in Congress are with Trump liking what they are doing to spite their opponents does not deserve a comment from him either, as it would pull someone to question their representatives in Congress. Can’t have that if he is trying to avoid being voted out of the current Republican island.
Did you see the news tonight and, if so, was the statement(which had to be pulled from you) “I oppose it. I think it’s cruel and unnecessary” all you had to say on the subject? I and My Beloved were shocked when we saw the report tonight, and I don’t think I can recall what we were talking about before we saw it…and we certainly didn’t just say anything like “I oppose it. I think it’s cruel and unnecessary” then go back to the conversation at hand.
What does Trump have to do for you, unsolicited, to say “What he did was horrendous and I want to talk about it instead of any of the side issues”? How far does he have to go to really push your buttons emotionally?
Here is the rest:
They lose some rights. They don’t lose all rights. They lose the right to live with their children.
Absolutely. That’s a useful distinction to make: a person incarcerated for either pre-trial detention or pst-trial conviction will almost always be able to visit with their minor children, assuming the child’s custodian is amenable.
Absolutely true.
I can.
Trump is a venal, petty leader, and nothing so far particularly surprises me.
But if I wanted to talk about it, and not debate points in disagreement between the participants, that sounds like MPSIMS or BBQ.
Here in GD I see little point in assuring each other just how much we agree with each other.