Only Walmart and private prisons benefit from this; everyone else is worse off.
There must be a more effective solution.
Not just a 'better quality of "neighborhood"' at Walmart, but for our society as a whole.
Not to strawman, but for instance, I see no ethical argument that homicide is less serious if you murder a person with a net negative cost to society. Neither murder nor theft are wrong simply because they're expensive. They're wrong without the context of cost.
In both cases, cost effectiveness isn't what I would consider the most important thing. However, I 100% agree with you that Walmart is certainly benefitting from the public police force enforcing private security. It's a sticky issue without a clear solution.
Crimes are crimes, but there's also a reason we install locks and alarm systems in our homes. By maintaining secure systems, we reduce our vulnerability to crime and our cost to everyone else. I feel like Walmart should do the same.
I disagree. It's the most cost effective method that we have that prevents stores becoming a free-for-all for shoplifters. This response serves to prevent other, similar crimes. Hidden from the cost of this is the saving society gets by crime not being worse. Higher shoplifting rates would mean higher prices for everyone because stores' security costs would be much higher.
We don't have the data to come to that conclusion. What if police responded to a lower percentage of these calls?
It may not be, but the cost of the drink vs. the cost of enforcement alone is not sufficient to show that. What you'd need to know is the net effect of the enforcement costs -- what future thefts would have happened without them that they prevent by deterrence (general or specific), incapacitation, or rehabilitation (including the particular enforcement actions contribution to the broader deterrent effect of the collective enforcement of similar offenses throughout society.)
What if, when presented with video evidence of the crime, there was already a 'plea deal' that was always on the table. Lets say that for 10X the minimum wage cost of the affected items, you could provide community service doing some type of work the community needs and would have otherwise contracted out.
In that case, the offender would literally work off the (retail) 'cost' of the drink (maybe also a fixed 'fine' in money or community service time) to the community, also providing some rehabilitation, while the company in question would be pressed in to only writing off whatever loss isn't covered by insurance as at cost shrinkage on their taxes.
Note that in this case instead of all of that money spent on corrections and the /peace/ officer is not wasted making a mountain out of a pimple.
So your proposal is that it be legal to steal items of less than $1,230 in value? Or is it to deprive those accused of stealing items with no more legal representation than the value of those items? Or … what?
That seems a little hyperbolic. Stealing less than $100 in FL is a 2nd degree misdemeanor, usually just punished by a fine and probation. No private prison is making money from a misdemeanor shoplifting arrest. It would be hard to argue that Walmart is profiting: their loss-prevention staff costs money, they have paperwork, and they do lose some merchandise when the shoplifter isn't caught.
Walmart may have plenty of negative externalities to discuss, but theft is a crime, and I don't see why they should be expected to ignore it.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defe...
Fine collection and private probation is just as fucked up. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/pr... http://www.npr.org/about-npr/314011043/npr-news-investigatio...