Deter vs app

[wjohnc]

...and like most of you was full of piss and vinegar when I first started. Apps apps apps, chase chase chase. That is all I ever did.

I used to be a firm believer in arrest when it came to LP. But as the years wore on, and I got tired of the fights and the chases, and I got wiser with experience, I realized that while arrest is a stepping stone for other investigations, that deterrence is safer for me, the criminal, passersby, everybody.

The mission of my last position, albeit in uniform, was to deter all criminals, not just shoplifters. But I was, because I had the training and experience, authorized to arrest.

Which did I find better?
Neither. Both. They each have their place. I found deterrence better when it came to people I believed posed no threat to others (an old man stealing lobster pieces), but arrest when it involved potentially violent subjects (those exhibiting signs of drug use, or people I knew from experience), which involves public safety.
Then again, each case is decided on its own merits.

wjohnc

[panther10758]

The deterring of any shoplift is financially better for any retailer. The act or deterring or preventing takes less time than observing, arresting and processing a shoplifter. This "saved time" puts LP back on floor quicker to stop or prevent further theft attempts. Not only this its safer for Lp, subject and innocents. Yes there is arguement that the lifter will return. I disagree with that arguement. The lifter best weapon is remainning unseen and unknown. Once you confront this subject he knows your face and vice versa. Prevention will reduce shrink faster than an agressive arest policy in my view. Example: At my last employer I dropped shrink over a full 1% yet we had 1/3 the arrest. I installed prevention methods and programs that worked and the proof was shrink number. This shrink % was lowest in stores history even though arrest in previous years were highest ever. In fact in one year (highest arrest year) shrink actually went up.

[Curtis Baillie]

here in the uk we are getting a lot of bother from police regarding shoplifters,the police want us to deter instore and take the items from the offender.
the company i work for gives us yearly arrest targets so this doesn't work.
also if we arrest a person for theft they just get a fixed penalty fine from the police on the spot

Here's something I posted on another site about the UK spot fines:

Vandals can avoid a spot fine by saying they'll be good
The Daily Mail
By JAMES SLACK

Shoplifters, drunks and vandals will escape paying on-the-spot fines if they promise to behave for a few months, it emerged last night. Thousands of yobs will be let off with "deferred" fixed-penalty notices each year.

Where once they would have been hauled into court, criminals will have their £80 fines suspended if they sign an Acceptable Behaviour Contract. If the offender behaves for the duration of the agreement - which could be as little as three months - police will cancel the fine. Separate plans will allow first-time shoplifters to escape any police action if they return their stolen items and say sorry to the shopkeeper.

Ministers admit the deferred fines plan - which applies to more than a dozen offences including theft, criminal damage, wasting police time and drunkenness - is "non-punitive". But they say the carrot and stick approach will encourage criminals to change their ways.

Retailers, who lose more than £800 million a year to shoplifting, reacted with fury. They said there was now little or no chance that shoplifters would be properly punished. The British Retail Consortium said the suspended fine "risks further undermining an already dangerously eroded system of penalties for shoplifting".

Director general Kevin Hawkins said: "Treating shoplifters in the same way as people caught littering or swearing in public is ludicrous. "Shoplifting is a crime, pure and simple, and it should be treated that way.

"On average, shoplifters make off with £150 of goods each time, so a slap on the wrist and black mark against the thief's name is no deterrent.

"We're all under an Acceptable Behaviour Contract, that's what being a law-abiding citizen means.

"Letting thieves off if they don't steal again is rewarding them for what they should be doing anyway.

"What we need from the Home Office is a firm line on retail crime. Would-be thieves need to know that if they choose to steal they're going to be dealt with like criminals, not naughty schoolboys."

Shopowners said they objected to the plans during a consultation period, but the Home Office has ignored them. Half the 37,500 fines handed out to shoplifters each year are not paid. Figures for other crimes covered by Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND) are similar.

Last year, they included 42,300 incidents of being drunk and disorderly, 19,600 cases of criminal damage and 664 of throwing fireworks. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "It is bad enough such serious crimes are effectively being punished with a glorified parking ticket.

"Now we learn that the Government won't even bother to collect the fines.

"Recent figures show that only half of all PNDs are being paid. The Government's response is to give up enforcing them.

"Despite their tough talk, this is yet another example of Labour watering down our criminal justice system."

The new scheme, which does not require a change to the law and will be introduced within months, applies to any offender who could be punished with an on-the-spot fine. The good behaviour contract will set out a list of requirements - such as a shoplifter promising not to steal.

Last night, it was unclear what would happen if the person committed an offence not covered by the contract. Ministers also confirmed plans to evict people - even if they own their homes - for persistently playing loud music or other yobbish behaviour. A closure order would ban them from returning for up to six months, with the threat of six months in jail. The Home Office said it would be used only as a last resort. But plans to give the police powers to force youngsters causing trouble to disperse were shelved after protests from children's charities.

It's a laugh... I just don't bother paying

Anthony Hickingbotham has ignored at least 11 on-the-spot fines. The prolific thief should have been jailed - but the last time he appeared in court police failed to tell the judge about his record.

That let the 26-year-old heroin addict claim the charge of stealing from a shop was "a blip" and he was sentenced to take a drug treatment course. But the court in Hull later discovered that Hickingbotham, who has a record of more than 40 offences, had been handed nine fines in the previous year, including eight for stealing. Four offences took place in the same pharmacy.

The case is now being investigated by senior judges and a letter of complaint has been sent to police. It said Hickingbotham would almost certainly have been jailed if the full facts had been disclosed.

Hickingbotham himself said of spot fines: "When I was first given one I thought it was a laugh. "I would rather get an £80 fine than be locked up for shoplifting. I have 11 of them now and I haven't paid them." As he smoked a cannabis joint before leaving for his drug treatment course, he added: "They do it to keep the costs down of taking you to court. It's only shoplifting and the prisons are full."

[Mr. Security]

I agree with those members who prefer deterrence when dealing with shoplifting. Although I don't work in LP, I have been posted at a large grocery store during a potential strike. I found that shadowing teenagers who were loitering near an isle with CDs and DVDs resulted in a short stay on their part. Some might disagree with my method and say that it smacks of profiling. Nevertheless, I believe that if you look and act suspicious, you shouldn't be surprised if this behavior attracts attention.

[Andy Taylor]

Mr Security,
Nothing at all wrong with profiling. Just not for race. If you profile behavior, which it sounds like you are doing, then that is a legitimate tool.

To our friends in the UK: That system is rediculous. Why not apply it to all crimes?
Have a rapist say he is sorry to his victim and give the police 80 pounds (where is the pound symbol on the keyboard?) Cheaper than a decent prostitute.
The murderer will have to say he is sorry to his victim's family, and then pay his 80 pounds to the police.
Oh wait, the police don't collect the fines a large part of the time. Well as long as he says "I'm sorry" everything is just fine.

[Bill Warnock]

Mr Security,
Nothing at all wrong with profiling. Just not for race. If you profile behavior, which it sounds like you are doing, then that is a legitimate tool.

To our friends in the UK: That system is rediculous. Why not apply it to all crimes?
Have a rapist say he is sorry to his victim and give the police 80 pounds (where is the pound symbol on the keyboard?) Cheaper than a decent prostitute.
The murderer will have to say he is sorry to his victim's family, and then pay his 80 pounds to the police.
Oh wait, the police don't collect the fines a large part of the time. Well as long as he says "I'm sorry" everything is just fine.

Andy, payment of £ 80 is in this instance not an issue; there are priorities especially after the subway and bus bombings. The courts are jammed and petty offenses are, as in this country, dismissed with a weird plea deal. When it comes to something egregious then they may do something. Revolving justice is I believe the term in vogue at this time.
Enjoy the day,
Bill