The Halloween idea is a great one, if you can get it off the ground. Our downtown merchants do it every year. This past year so many people came that the pedestrians caused a traffic jam for four blocks. While this may not sound impressive to big city dwellers, understand that four blocks is almost all of downtown where I live.
And thanks for the answer to my question. I can appreciate that most of your business transactions are pleasant or just plain unremarkable. But the last column made it look quite different. A single throwaway line to counteract the impression would have helped. Well, helped me anyway.
__________________
Works of artistic genius don't excuse the artist's sins; but neither do the artist's sins debase the quality of his art.
-- Orson Scott Card
Though I usually don’t read replies to my column, I did this past month, and wanted to make a few follow ups.
Let me suggest that you make this clear in the column. As anyone reading RPGnet columns (and as a past columnist myself) I always assume the people writing the columns take the time to read the comments since, first, replies are a feature of the column, and second, if people care to read the column, the less we can expect from the person writting it is to read back their comments.
Of course, you may do it differently but it should be clear that you don't read the replies. That way people can realise their comments are useless.
Quote:
A kid who steals stuff, and whose parents do nothing but make excuses for him is not being exposed or humiliated – or punished. He is being enabled by his parents.
So, what do you do about the parents? Because they are the ones at stake more than the kid.
Quote:
Shoplifting is the difference between me having health insurance, and NOT having health insurance.
Shoplifhting is a business hazard and any businessman has to look at it that way. No matter how much you do, it will always be there. Yes, you can reduce it but you cannot eliminate it. Big businesses look at it that way and just organize themselves in such way as to handle shoplifting in the best possible financial way.
Quote:
Too bad that so many people think stealing is just okay.
It is not a question of thinking stealing is just okay. It's a question of adjusting the measures according to the dimension of the offence and the maturity of the offender. A kid should not be treated as harshly as an adult. A person that attempts to shoplift from your store for the first time and about witch you have no knowledge of past shoplifting in other stores should not be treated as harshly as someone that you know is repeating the attempt. It's called good sense.
Quote:
Let me ask you, if someone stole $20K a year from your bank account, would you turn the other cheek if his parents seemed upset, or the kid seemed humiliated? Cause, that is literally what I suffer. It is like someone stealing my car, every year.
But you are distording things and misrepresenting the facts. No one - the kid included - stole $20k from you. It was not one person. You cannot treat the first shoplifter you catch as if he had stolen from you $20k.
Yes, you must take action against shoplifting. I just think that action should be adjusted to the situation. You should not treat all shoplifting attempts the same way. And you should consider that you can't avoid it completely. You have to factor into your business, both in financial and logistic terms, the reality of shoplifting. This is just plain business common sense, I'm not inventing anything here.
I agree with smascrns. It is, of course, up to you whether to prosecute. The prosecutor's job is to decide whether to press charges or plea the case out, depending on the circumstances -- he or she has the potential for a great deal of access to information about the offender and his/her prior record (if any). I'm a bit troubled tho, by your comment about making it your mission to pressure the DA into incarcerating all shoplifters. You've got some signfiicant rights under Michigan's Victims' Rights Law, but I'd humbly suggest listening with an open mind to the DA's reasons before trying to change his/her mind.
Depending on your free time, you might want to try a different approach. Know any friendly reporters who might do a story on shoplifting and how much it affects small retailers? If the high school or college from which a large number of your customers are drawn has a paper, what about them? If you can get the effect of shoplifting thru a few thick heads, you may make some progress.
Problem with teens and even some young adults is they literally can't evaluate consequences the same way that adults do. Parts of the brain that deal with weighing long-term consequences don't form until late teens or early 20s. That's why, in part, the Supreme Court said juveniles can't be executed
Yes, the teen, the parents, and the cops need to take things seriously, but jail and/or juvenile hall rarely do any good for the offender or, in the long term, for you and for other merchants when the offender gets back out on the streets unreformed and less employable. It may be worth thinking about whether you'd accept restitution plus a serious fine, or even "community service" putting an offender to work shoveling your walks or lugging around heavy packages to see how hard it is to run a small business.
Shoplifhting is a business hazard and any businessman has to look at it that way. No matter how much you do, it will always be there. Yes, you can reduce it but you cannot eliminate it. Big businesses look at it that way and just organize themselves in such way as to handle shoplifting in the best possible financial way.
To be sure, one needs to account for inventory shrinkage, but one doesn't need to simply resign themselves that it's going to happen.
Quote:
It is not a question of thinking stealing is just okay. It's a question of adjusting the measures according to the dimension of the offence and the maturity of the offender. A kid should not be treated as harshly as an adult. A person that attempts to shoplift from your store for the first time and about witch you have no knowledge of past shoplifting in other stores should not be treated as harshly as someone that you know is repeating the attempt. It's called good sense.
This is the same kind of mentality that believes a "hate" crime is worse than the "normal" version of the offense.
Theft is theft, regardless of whether or not it's a 12-year-old first-timer, or a 30-year-old career criminal. A kid SHOULD be treated as "harshly" as an adult (though I frown at the use of the word "harshly").
What's "good sense" about a treating shoplifter A "better" than repeat-shoplifter B? The penalty for theft is a call to the police, an arrest, and prosecution. Period. Don't steal.
Quote:
But you are distording things and misrepresenting the facts. No one - the kid included - stole $20k from you. It was not one person. You cannot treat the first shoplifter you catch as if he had stolen from you $20k.
Why not? The kid contributed to it just as much as anyone else, he was just one of them dumb enough to get caught.
Quote:
Yes, you must take action against shoplifting. I just think that action should be adjusted to the situation. You should not treat all shoplifting attempts the same way. And you should consider that you can't avoid it completely. You have to factor into your business, both in financial and logistic terms, the reality of shoplifting. This is just plain business common sense, I'm not inventing anything here.
I'd say that he is factoring it into his business. He knows it's going to happen, he's arranged his inventory and displays to minimize it, he's invested in a better security system. He's taken plenty of measures to minimize/reduce it, and by prosecuting every last punk criminal he catches, he sends the message that it's not OK to shoplift from that store.
If you were a criminal youth, and you were targeting two stores, one of which pursues full legal action against you, and the other gives you bunnies and sunshine and tells you that it's not your fault, that you're really the victim, which store are you going to shoplift from?
Of course, now we can blame Marcus for his neighbors or competitors getting a higher degree of shoplifting, since he's driven them out of his store...
I agree with smascrns. It is, of course, up to you whether to prosecute. The prosecutor's job is to decide whether to press charges or plea the case out, depending on the circumstances -- he or she has the potential for a great deal of access to information about the offender and his/her prior record (if any). I'm a bit troubled tho, by your comment about making it your mission to pressure the DA into incarcerating all shoplifters. You've got some signfiicant rights under Michigan's Victims' Rights Law, but I'd humbly suggest listening with an open mind to the DA's reasons before trying to change his/her mind.
At the end of the day, however, Marcus was the victim, and he shouldn't have a number of public servants trying to get him to refrain from pursuing legal action against a criminal. Crime propagates because criminals know that there's weak and ineffective punishments for the crime.
Quote:
Depending on your free time, you might want to try a different approach. Know any friendly reporters who might do a story on shoplifting and how much it affects small retailers? If the high school or college from which a large number of your customers are drawn has a paper, what about them? If you can get the effect of shoplifting thru a few thick heads, you may make some progress.
I wasn't a shoplifter in my youth, but I'll tell you what - most of the stories like you suggest, the ones I and my peers read when we were younger, they got laughed at as useless. Nobody really actually believed that it would do any good.
Quote:
Problem with teens and even some young adults is they literally can't evaluate consequences the same way that adults do. Parts of the brain that deal with weighing long-term consequences don't form until late teens or early 20s. That's why, in part, the Supreme Court said juveniles can't be executed
And their inability to evaluate the consequence is corrected by having to deal with the consequences.
When I was 8, I knew that stealing was wrong. I didn't do it, because my parents made it clear that not only was it morally wrong, but if I did it, I'd have hell to pay for it. Guess what? I didn't steal.
I'm going to hazard a guess that my brain wasn't all fully-formed at age 8.
Quote:
Yes, the teen, the parents, and the cops need to take things seriously, but jail and/or juvenile hall rarely do any good for the offender or, in the long term, for you and for other merchants when the offender gets back out on the streets unreformed and less employable. It may be worth thinking about whether you'd accept restitution plus a serious fine, or even "community service" putting an offender to work shoveling your walks or lugging around heavy packages to see how hard it is to run a small business.
Jail and juvenile hall rarely do any good for the offender, because when they're not simply a revolving-door, they're a paid hotel room.
Criminals aren't punished under our legal system these days. They know that the penalties aren't severe, which is why they continue to commit the crimes.
one doesn't need to simply resign themselves that it's going to happen.
It's going to happen. It always does.
Quote:
This is the same kind of mentality that believes a "hate" crime is worse than the "normal" version of the offense.
Can't see the link.
Quote:
Theft is theft, regardless of whether or not it's a 12-year-old first-timer, or a 30-year-old career criminal. A kid SHOULD be treated as "harshly" as an adult (though I frown at the use of the word "harshly"). and
What's "good sense" about a treating shoplifter A "better" than repeat-shoplifter B? The penalty for theft is a call to the police, an arrest, and prosecution. Period. Don't steal. and
Why not? The kid contributed to it just as much as anyone else, he was just one of them dumb enough to get caught.
And all crimes are equal. After all and as you say, stealing a $2 Pokemon card is the same as stealing $20,000. Likewise, stealing shows as much contempt for society as murder. I tell you what, let's handle all of them the same way: Death penalty to them all. Kill them on spot. Caught a 6 year old stealing sweets from mum's sweet pot? Kill the little criminal right away. No need for stinking courts that just distord justice.
By the way, you've better watch what you do. If I find you in front of me and I don't like the way you look, I'll just turn you into pulp. 'cause, you know, hate adds nothing to an act. I'm entitled to hate you for no reason and since acting on hate should not be accounted for, I'm more than entitled to finish you on spot.
And all crimes are equal. After all and as you say, stealing a $2 Pokemon card is the same as stealing $20,000. Likewise, stealing shows as much contempt for society as murder. I tell you what, let's handle all of them the same way: Death penalty to them all. Kill them on spot. Caught a 6 year old stealing sweets from mum's sweet pot? Kill the little criminal right away. No need for stinking courts that just distord justice.
Wow. This may be the first time I've read a post and thought, "Hmm, a couple days banned for a personal attack just might be worth it."
Your points are all very entertaining. It's a shame they have nothing to do with the message you are responding to.
It's kind of neat that our judicial system allows sentencing to be influenced by the severity of the crime. Steal a $2 card, you're probably not going to jail at all. Steal all of Marcus's $20,000 annual loss in one fell swoop, you probably are.
Nonetheless, bleeding-hearts yelling "Forgive the criminal, he/she is just a victim" does nothing to make people learn the consequences of their actions. Actually, I lie. It does everything to teach them that the consequences of their actions are to be allowed to repeat their offence.
The kid chose to steal. He has every right to make that choice. Marcus has every right to want the kid to be treated like the criminal he has chosen to be. And I think it would be nice if Marcus could get a response from his local law-enforcement (police, prosecutors, etc.) that did not say "You're a second-class citizen and we won't take you seriously. After all, it's just games."
Treat the first-timer or small-timer differently than someone else? Can't see that leading to a lawsuit because Marcus discriminated in his reaction, can you? Not in today's litigious society.
Hank
Last edited by hwoolsey; 11-15-2008 at 10:28 PM..
Reason: Typo
The lack of support from law enforcement is not universal. We've had officers be very helpful in assisting with prosecution, letting us know the steps we need to take, approximate time periods, expected results, and so on.
A letter to the editor about shoplifting might get results. A letter to the editor talking about how the legal system won't prosecute will almost certainly get results.
Wow. This may be the first time I've read a post and thought, "Hmm, a couple days banned for a personal attack just might be worth it."
There are dictionnaries in the net, book shops, libraries, wherever you want them. Pick one and check the words 'irony' and 'sarcasm'. When you get their meaning you will realise there's no personal attack in my post. None at all.
Quote:
Your points are all very entertaining. It's a shame they have nothing to do with the message you are responding to.
They have all to do but you seem to not realize that. Am I doing a personal attack on you?
Quote:
It's kind of neat that our judicial system allows sentencing to be influenced by the severity of the crime. Steal a $2 card, you're probably not going to jail at all. Steal all of Marcus's $20,000 annual loss in one fell swoop, you probably are.
Precisely. Now, it seems our fellow kythri doesn't know about it. For him stealing $2 is the same as stealing $20,000. In any case, it's good to see you got my point and realised it has all to do with the message I was responding to.
Quote:
Nonetheless, bleeding-hearts yelling "Forgive the criminal, he/she is just a victim" does nothing to make people learn the consequences of their actions. Actually, I lie. It does everything to teach them that the consequences of their actions are to be allowed to repeat their offence.
You're right. Did i say the oposite? No, I didn't. I just pointed to the fact that, and allow me to paraphrase you, "stone-hearts yelling "pound the criminal, he/she is just a punk, a complete marginal" does nothing to make people learn the consequences of their actions. Actually, I lie. It does everything to teach them that the consequences of their actions are" so extreme that it's better to go for most extreme offence instead of sticking for small crimes.
Do I believe in this? No, I don't. I neither believe in the stone-hearts view of criminals or the bleeding-hearts view. Both are wrong.
Quote:
The kid chose to steal.
The kid is a kid. As all kids, he is learning to chose. He has not the same degree of maturity in his choices as an adult. That's why we distinguish adults from kids. Imature kids often do the wrong choices. They should not be handled as mature adults, even if on the surface of things they seem to choose in the same terms. I didn't invent this, it's in our social, legal, moral systems.
Quote:
Marcus has every right to want the kid to be treated like the criminal he has chosen to be.
Well, I don't know Marcus well enough to be sure he does not make his own wrong choices once in a while. No, I'm not judge and I don't want to pass judgement on him. I'm just reminded of a passage in a very old book about throwing stones...
Quote:
And I think it would be nice if Marcus could get a response from his local law-enforcement (police, prosecutors, etc.) that did not say "You're a second-class citizen and we won't take you seriously. After all, it's just games."
Were you there when the local law-enforcement came with response? Did you read a written response framed in those terms? I didn't. All I have is a one-sided story told by one of the involved parties. In order to be able to form my own thinking about this issue I would need the other sides of the story. The kid; his parents; the law officers. Marcus' side is not enough. But maybe I'm just a sweet-heart that likes to listen to people after all.
Quote:
Treat the first-timer or small-timer differently than someone else?
Certainly. And you provided the reason, but it has been in discussion for thousands of years. It's called proportinal justice. Treat differently what is different. Treat a kid differently from an adult; treat a firs-timer differently from a repeat offender; treat a small-timer different from a big-timer. All these nuances and distinctions are part of our culture. I would say they are the best part of our culture.
Of course, your view may be different. There are countries that are more than willing to accomodate harder perspective. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. child, first-timer, small-timer, who cares? Cut the raskal's hand and he will steal no more. Have a nice flight to Riad.
Linear Mode
