Receive an email every 2 months, informing you of updates to this article directory.
Shoplifters still have a choice
By:
In the industry, they call it "shrinkage." On the streets, it's known as shoplifting. And according to the National Retail Security Survey, retailers lost $31 billion in 2002 to shoplifting, employee theft, vendor fraud and administrative errors. So-called shrinkage amounted to the loss of 1.7 percent of retail sales in 2002.
Such losses cannot be tolerated. They increase the costs that law-abiding consumers must pay for groceries and other merchandise.
It's no wonder retailers and the state Legislature have teamed up to give merchants better means to crack down on thieves who are robbing them blind.
A state law allows store owners to give all shoplifters a choice: Pay $200 on the spot or summon police.
It's a reasonable choice that holds people accountable for their misdeeds. If a person believes he or she has been detained by mistake, they can opt for the police and let the courts sort it out. Those who know they are guilty can pay the $200 and avoid a black mark on their record.
The Legislature passed the law to free up clogged court dockets. Retailers cannot be blamed for using the tools at their disposal to stop the thefts.
A Food Marketing Institute survey in 2003 found that the average shoplifting incident involved the theft of $45.27 worth of merchandise. Those losses add up to a staggering sum.
Some merchants are drawing criticism for following the law and making shoplifters choose between the on-the-spot fine and police.
An Olympia woman who didn't have enough money to pay for a small package of batteries said she absent-mindedly walked out of a local grocery store to her car, where she intended to retrieve additional money to make the battery purchase. She was nabbed by a security guard before she reached the car and was given the choice: $200 fine or summon police?
Under the embarrassment of the scene, she paid with her bank card but regretted it almost immediately.
"It was a superintimidating situation," the woman said. "I feel a little taken advantage of. I think I should have just called the cops and explained it to them, but I was thinking, 'Oh, I'm going to go to jail!' "
Look at this situation from the standpoint of the grocer. The owner or the security guard doesn't know whether the shopper is a woman headed to her car for additional change or part of a shoplifting ring that has elevated theft to an art form. Professional thieves know how much they can steal without getting into the felony range. There also are shoplifters who are less professional but still have every intent of defrauding the store for the sake of convenience or out of defiance.
The bottom line is that shoplifters of all stripes cost retailers billions of dollars, and those retailers make up for that "shrinkage" by charging higher prices to all other shoppers.
Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia, has it right when he says: "I think the idea of a civil compromise to misdemeanors is a good idea. To the degree that we can avoid criminal records and make injured persons whole without relying on the law, I think that's great."
The bottom line is, shoplifters still have a choice: a fine or their day in court. That puts the responsibility where it belongs - in the hands of the accused.
Such losses cannot be tolerated. They increase the costs that law-abiding consumers must pay for groceries and other merchandise.
It's no wonder retailers and the state Legislature have teamed up to give merchants better means to crack down on thieves who are robbing them blind.
A state law allows store owners to give all shoplifters a choice: Pay $200 on the spot or summon police.
It's a reasonable choice that holds people accountable for their misdeeds. If a person believes he or she has been detained by mistake, they can opt for the police and let the courts sort it out. Those who know they are guilty can pay the $200 and avoid a black mark on their record.
The Legislature passed the law to free up clogged court dockets. Retailers cannot be blamed for using the tools at their disposal to stop the thefts.
A Food Marketing Institute survey in 2003 found that the average shoplifting incident involved the theft of $45.27 worth of merchandise. Those losses add up to a staggering sum.
Some merchants are drawing criticism for following the law and making shoplifters choose between the on-the-spot fine and police.
An Olympia woman who didn't have enough money to pay for a small package of batteries said she absent-mindedly walked out of a local grocery store to her car, where she intended to retrieve additional money to make the battery purchase. She was nabbed by a security guard before she reached the car and was given the choice: $200 fine or summon police?
Under the embarrassment of the scene, she paid with her bank card but regretted it almost immediately.
"It was a superintimidating situation," the woman said. "I feel a little taken advantage of. I think I should have just called the cops and explained it to them, but I was thinking, 'Oh, I'm going to go to jail!' "
Look at this situation from the standpoint of the grocer. The owner or the security guard doesn't know whether the shopper is a woman headed to her car for additional change or part of a shoplifting ring that has elevated theft to an art form. Professional thieves know how much they can steal without getting into the felony range. There also are shoplifters who are less professional but still have every intent of defrauding the store for the sake of convenience or out of defiance.
The bottom line is that shoplifters of all stripes cost retailers billions of dollars, and those retailers make up for that "shrinkage" by charging higher prices to all other shoppers.
Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia, has it right when he says: "I think the idea of a civil compromise to misdemeanors is a good idea. To the degree that we can avoid criminal records and make injured persons whole without relying on the law, I think that's great."
The bottom line is, shoplifters still have a choice: a fine or their day in court. That puts the responsibility where it belongs - in the hands of the accused.