
A startup helps stores give suspected shoplifters a choice: $320 or cops - mathattack
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/shoplifting_at_whole_foods_or_bloomingdale_s_pay_corrective_education_company.single.html
======
desdiv
How is this not extortion and blackmail?

 _Among other things a legal threat may do the following: Constitute
extortion, blackmail, or some other crime or tort involving improper threats
of harm: for example, it is considered unethical, and in some cases a crime,
to threaten to report criminal conduct to the police unless a settlement is
reached._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_threat#Effect_of_legal_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_threat#Effect_of_legal_threat)

Hilariously enough, Googling "blackmail threatening to report crime" and an HN
post is on the first page:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2856066](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2856066)

Maybe thucydides would like to chime in here as well?

~~~
Intermernet
In addition to this obvious point is the fact that most people who shoplift
something do it because _they can 't afford to buy it_.

How does charging $320 fix that underlying problem? If anything, it makes it
worse.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_In addition to this obvious point is the fact that most people who shoplift
something do it because they can 't afford to buy it._

Is that actually the case? It seems intuitively obvious, but I expect there
are actually quite a few other reasons people end up shoplifting.

~~~
mercer
I know quite a few people who have admitted to shoplifting in their past,
often regularly, and almost exclusively from their own employer. It was often
a way to express dissatisfaction with the work, or to 'compensate' for low
pay. And according to them, all of their colleagues did the same, and often
involved their friends too.

As a teenager I worked at McDonalds for a year. We had pants without pockets,
and I was told that this was primarily to keep employees from stealing.

------
jacquesm
Why not $500 or $5000 for everybody that walks into the store, or cops...

Law enforcement should be left to law enforcement. Either you call the cops or
you let them go, extra-judicial settlement is problematic for quite a few
reasons, the most important of which is that you're determining guilt and
setting an arbitrary price all in one go using the 'or cops' as a way to
threaten a suspect.

~~~
icebraining
But weren't they already determining guilt by deciding who to call the cops
on? This is not the typical extra-judicial settlement since the money doesn't
go to the retailer, so it doesn't seem to suffer from the same distorted
incentives - there's no gain in accusing more people than before.

~~~
jacquesm
No, when you call the cops you have to file a complaint against the person
you've detained and then the legal system takes over from there. You don't get
to determine guilt.

And it's a problem _especially_ since a large chunk of the money does not go
to the retailer but to some other party who has a large incentive to get you
to settle.

~~~
hurin
> You don't get to determine guilt.

But this deal does not involve determining guilt either (in any legal sense),
they are merely signing an obligation to take a course.

~~~
joosters
It says, right at the top of the article, that you have to sign an admission
of guilt before you can sign up and pay the money.

You can bet that if the people then struggle with paying for the course, CEC
will threaten to present this admission to the cops.

~~~
hurin
That document which you sign presumably stays confidential between the
retailer and you (i.e. a perspective employer won't see it).

The article also states that:

 _If someone started to take the course and paid for it—if they change their
mind and they want to get their day in court, we’ll refund their money and put
the case back in the retailer’s hands. They’ve got multiple opportunities to
step back from this._

So I'm not sure how the two of those square.

I'm not vouching for this sort of practice (and it's probably been abused) -
but it may in fact be preferable for a dumb young teenager/adult, to take an
online course, than to have theft on their criminal record (that would
probably make it pretty hard to find employment, even at a crappy job).

~~~
mapt
Unless you don't pay.

If you refuse to pay after the fact, and decide you should have rights after
all, then the retailer can send the police your signed admission of guilt - at
which point due process disappears. That admission represents credible
blackmail material to get you to pay.

"Sign this sheet of paper that says you murdered someone and pay me $50,000,
or I will accuse you of murder publicly"

Making this proposition is very likely a criminal offense _independently_ of
whether it would be a false police report or not.

~~~
hurin
Does that paper constitute admissible evidence in court? If so this is very
dubiously legal and borders on blackmail.

Although it's probably more likely that you can't sign away or admit guilt
without correct legal procedure, and such documents are simply not worth
anything (i.e. like user-agreements which supposedly say you waive your rights
to legal action). Would be interesting to see someone with a legal background
comment on this.

------
keithpeter
[http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/dec/07/civil-recovery-
sc...](http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/dec/07/civil-recovery-schemes-for-
or-against)

Summary of the issues with non-police based 'civil recovery schemes' in uk.

------
davej
So, if you have the money you can walk away free, if you're poor then we're
calling the cops.

This is fucked up.

~~~
icebraining
According to the article, the course is free if you're below the poverty line.

~~~
VinhSama
This program is inherently discriminatory against people of low socio-economic
status. The article clearly states that less than 2% actually qualified for a
full ride, not to mention offenders from low socio-economic status are known
to be less aware, or less willing to utilize these types of aid. This is seen
from all sorts of offender rehabilitation programs and social aid programs.
This will only lead the impoverished to be further marginalized.

Think of it this way, the man in Florida who was arrested 258 times by corrupt
police for "trespassing" at his own place of work would not qualify for said
program for no reason other than he was an impoverished minority, and was
therefore more likely to be targeted by police and less likely to fight
fraudulent charges.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512374/Florida-
poli...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512374/Florida-police-stop-
man-258-times-TRESPASSING-place-work.html)

------
beejiu
I don't know how US law works, but would this not be against the following law
[http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.090](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.090):

> (1) A person is guilty of bribing a witness if he or she offers, confers, or
> agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness or a person he or she has reason
> to believe is about to be called as a witness in any official proceeding or
> upon a person whom he or she has reason to believe may have information
> relevant to a criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor
> child, with intent to:

> (b) Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him or her to
> testify; or

> (d) Induce that person to refrain from reporting information relevant to a
> criminal investigation or the abuse or neglect of a minor child.

~~~
icebraining
That's a process to avoid bribing witnesses, not the accused, from what I can
tell.

~~~
reitanqild
I think the point is that the shop detective is a witness and here they are
collecting bribes.

~~~
icebraining
They aren't, since they don't get the money. How is it a bribe?

EDIT: someone else pointed out that retailers do get a cut, I had missed that
part.

------
latch
I would normally be appalled by this, but...

Slate couldn't find 1 person who felt coerced? I kept expecting them to have
someone claim to have paid because he or she felt traped, but nada.

Related, while security guards might not always right, there's nothing in here
that says that the choice is offered to every suspect. Maybe they only offer
it to people who clearly shoplifted. The author tried, and failed, to get
comment from retailers.

Those are two big missing pieces, imp.

Finally, being particularly cynical today, don't see why law enforcement
should have a monopoly on coercion.

~~~
jacquesm
The people that paid up were paying to see the end of it, not to get
interviewed afterwards. Of course they would stay the course and still want to
make it go away.

Going on the record to say they felt coerced would be counter to that.

~~~
latch
Maybe it's just an issue of scale, but there are plenty of concrete cases
where people speak out against coercion (either by law enforcement of private
entities, like banks).

I agree the system can be abused, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want
to know how widespread the abuse is. I think the author failed to provide
that.

Saying that, it's now clear to me that CEC is also failing in this respect.
What system do they have in place to make sure people aren't being coerced?
The hands-off approach is rather convenient to not having to be accountable.

------
crdoconnor
I can see this amplifying the epidemic of shoplifting by the wealthy:

[http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/02/18/why-do-the-wealthy-
sh...](http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/02/18/why-do-the-wealthy-shoplift/)

------
scotty79
I wonder if there are people that thing this is bad but plea bargaining is
good.

------
spacemanmatt
Cops, not justice. Important distinction for non-American readers to
understand what actual bargain is offered.

------
WorldWideWayne
In most places the law says that you must have concealed something and walked
towards the exit or left the store before you can be charged with shoplifting.

