The lack of prosecution means that they continue to do that. Having a low stock on things at the store for known shoplifting sends a signal to the people at the store that there are 2 prices for their goods: Pay nothing or pay the price on it.

The store has to be able to recuperate the loss there. That means either:

1. Higher prices (and for a region that isn't doing well.. they can't afford it and are pushed futher to steal more to survive)

or

2. The store can't survive in that region (Good bye Target on the south side of chicago.. hello food desert once again..also job losses of people trying to make it legitmately) https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-target-closin...

When you punish someone for shoplifting sufficently enough: That means for the time that they're now occupied they can't shoplift, and others do not see continued shoplifting for them. (This is also how violent crimes work as well..)

> When you punish someone for shoplifting sufficently enough: That means for the time that they're now occupied they can't shoplift, and others do not see continued shoplifting for them. (This is also how violent crimes work as well..)

Honest question: how do we know that this works? And more importantly, where does incarceration as a deterrent not work (e.g. where are the bounds)? Do you have a source?

> how do we know that this works?

Well when they're locked up.. they can't go to walgreens and steal a bucket of tidepods.

Sources: No unfortunately I don't. Most of the articles I've seen on this tend to have a bias against punishment for crime and tend to over inflate "corrupt enforcement". (Rather than to discuss the full situation, statistics and societal cost)

My understanding is that crime is mostly a young person's thing. The older people get the less likely they're to commit crime. Prison as a way of aging people out is effective. At best it can prevent people from falling back with the people who go them in the situation.

> My understanding is that crime is mostly a young person's thing. The older people get the less likely they're to commit crime.

This makes sense; younger people tend to be less risk averse. Not sure if “aging people out” is the right solution: people who get out of prison usually have worse prospects than when they go in, so (assuming older people are in fact less likely to commit crime) we’d be trading one social problem for another (health/welfare/homelessness).

Also, from an ethical standpoint, I don’t think I could get behind long incarceration times and strict punishments for petty crimes just to reduce the rate of crime. These are real (young) people with lives that are being upended for some mistakes.

>"And would that stop other people from stealing in the future?"

Yes. Consequences are a deterrent. You will never be able to know for sure how many acts of theft weren't carried out because the person decided the reward wasn't work the risk of getting caught and going to jail. It seems self-evident that theft will rise when deterrents are dramatically curtailed. No one was suggesting that the threat of jail/prison would prevent all theft.

>"What's the return on investment for sending someone to jail over diapers stolen from a Walgreens?"

This is intangible. There will never be a satisfactory answer because there are just too many variables. How much theft was prevented by merit of being in jail? Is it possible going to jail made this person re-evaluate their life? Maybe some cashier's life was saved because a confrontation never took place. The theoreticals are endless.

> Yes.

Until they're released. At which point they'll have an even harder time getting a job, they'll be even more alienated and broken, and they'll likely only be able to associate with other criminals. Sounds like a recipe for increasing crime.

> Consequences are a deterrent.

Not really. If your options are "die" or "face potential consequences" you choose the latter every time.

I really doubt that "I don't want to go to prison" is why most people don't commit crime. They don't commit crime because... crime sucks, it's not fun, and it's not really necessary for most people. The people who do crime aren't like "haha they won't prosecute me, sweet, finally I can go commit crimes". They're desperate.

This seems so obvious.

> This is intangible.

Kind of a cop out. The reality is that people who go to prison have an extremely high rate of ending up back in prison, often for even worse crimes.

>"They don't commit crime because... crime sucks, it's not fun, and it's not really necessary for most people."

This doesn't explain vandalism, joyriding, or kleptomania. Additionally, the notion that "it's not really necessary for most people" is true, but misleading. But have you considered that some people realize theft is an easier alternative to being gainfully employed? Why bother putting up with a boss and paying taxes when I can steal a single catalytic converter and make $2K under the table? That's like a month's worth of salary gained in 20 minutes.

>"The people who do crime aren't like "haha they won't prosecute me, sweet, finally I can go commit crimes". They're desperate."

I don't think you have ever met a criminal. Some are desperate, but why can't you recognize that crime is lucrative and a preferable alternative for these people? For lots of people, if they can get away with it, they'll do it. Their conscience doesn't bother them like it would for you and I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyride_(crime)

> This doesn't explain vandalism, joyriding, or kleptomania.

These are pretty minor crimes lol I'll be really happy if we get to a point where we have to worry about these things.

> But have you considered that some people realize theft is an easier alternative to being gainfully employed?

I mean, yes, I've considered it. I dismissed it because it's sort of idiotic. Is it better than working a job with no healthcare, benefits, a minimum wage, and the chance to be fired at any time with no safety nets? Sure, yeah. We should fix that.

> why can't you recognize that crime is lucrative and a preferable alternative for these people?

We both agree that crime is preferable for some people. We just disagree about why.

> Their conscience doesn't bother them like it would for you and I.

Years of living in an abusive society, learning that crime is a survival mechanism, etc, will naturally do that to anyone.

>"These are pretty minor crimes lol I'll be really happy if we get to a point where we have to worry about these things."

"Pretty minor crimes, lol". I sense you live in a nice area and have lived a sheltered life. You may not have to worry about such things, but plenty of people are not so fortunate. Have you ever had your home broken into? Your family's car stolen and joyridden? I have, multiple times. It's easy to write these things off as minor concerns when it's not happening to you.

I'm laughing because your points are so bad, to be clear, not at the crimes.

Haha, I guess that makes me feel better.

An even harder time finding a job? Finding a job for Andre is impossible already, because he doesn't want a job.

Even though fencing shit is exactly the same as many retail jobs, except for the source of the goods

If it's a one-time occurrence, the RoI is negligible or even negative. If it's a lifestyle for someone, then the RoI to society is significantly higher.

Walgreens, drug stores, and grocery stores continue to exist in your city. People continue to open new businesses. People and their families remain in your downtown areas, etc etc.

right? I never understand this. the diapers are worth essentially ~nothing. the loss to society is nil. everyone is so hyper-focused on the momentary trivial material theft aspect and not realizing what society is actually losing is a person truly partaking in the rest of society in a productive or positive way.

The person they describe in the article is providing nothing to society. Only taking handouts and not using those handouts to better themselves, but instead continuing their life of crime and theft. No amount of extra help will lead them down a better path other than a long term mental institution (which we dont have anymore). They have betrayed the good will of the public providing those programs and jail is the only thing that will stop them at this point from continuing to lead a life of crime and theft.

Receiving free housing doesn't obligate him into bettering himself. I know most people totally disagree with this, and people usually get angry when I say things like that. But I don't care. The government has far more than enough money to literally just give everyone a free apartment, or a basic income (and I already pay so much income tax, I am totally fine with some of it going to help support others who are struggling). Maybe if Andre's parents had received that 20 years ago it would have made a serious difference in his life. He's figured out how to survive on his own in the meantime, and spent the past 15-20 years living that way, so it's not going to be easy for him to change from that way of living. Throwing him in jail is not going to make that happen -- in fact he's more likely to end up with a far worse psychological outlook after spending time in jail for... stealing a pack of diapers?

Here's a very relevant paper on the issue, where the researcher concludes a number of suggestions, including "we need to consider ceasing to use prison as punishment" and "we should draw on the research of what we know works to prevent recidivism, especially literacy programs, skills training and GED, as well as educating prisoners to associate’s degree level in higher education and restore financial support for these successful practices": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258834307_On_the_Ef...

So in what case in your mind is Andre responsible for his own actions here? It sounds like your solution is only to give him more and more handouts and expect a different result, when it doesn't sound like anything has worked for him in the past.

> spending time in jail for... stealing a pack of diapers?

That's disingenuous at best. These people steal hundreds of items and setup tables selling them. This isn't a mother stealing formula or diapers for her child. It's a criminal operation stealing stuff by the trash bag (as we have seen in many videos over the past few years) in cities with very loose theft laws (mostly on the west coast).

My overall argument is, I don't know what to do about Andre right now, but throwing him in jail isn't going to help (I'd be willing to bet he's already spent time there actually). What will help reduce future "Andres" right now is ensuring people aren't living in a destitute situation and missing out on a decent education and generally partaking in society. That's like the absolutely fundamental first step to having a functioning society. You can't throw people by the wayside, but we (NA) do it in droves.

We have been throwing money, education opportunities, food and everything else at the poverty problem since LBJ passed the great society act in the 60s. By all metrics, things have gotten way worse even with those programs. So throwing more resources at the problem isn't the answer IMO. It's parenting, a focus on education (not turning teachers into babysitters but actual focus on passing), keeping fathers in the household as a role model for their young sons, and a focus on a community relying on each other instead of being dependent on the government.

>"what society is actually losing is a person truly partaking in the rest of society in a productive or positive way."

I must beg the question, if nothing is being done to address this person's asocial behavior, how on Earth will they become a productive and positive member of society? Many of these people have learned they can get more of what they want by breaking the law than by living within it.

People like me who are gainfully employed, pay taxes, and don't steal look at the lawlessness and genuinely start to wonder why we even bother upholding the social contract when there seems to be no interest in applying it anymore.

The diapers aren't worth much, but when theft drives retailers to reduce their hours or close their stores, that's a cost to society.

Also they aren't stealing one pack of diapers. They are filling trash bags and walking out of the store because they know the loss prevention can't physically stop them and west coast cities have implemented policies that make it useless for police to arrest them (charges get dismissed by activist DAs).

Diapers are worth essentially nothing? Tell that to anyone responsible for an infant.