Whether or not one is sympathetic towards the people practicing this, the key issue that is becoming apparent is increasing apathy towards basic civilizational social contracts. This will be bad for everyone in the long term.
Whether or not one is sympathetic towards the people practicing this, the key issue that is becoming apparent is increasing apathy towards basic civilizational social contracts. This will be bad for everyone in the long term.
That this is not the obvious conclusion is alarming. We've been talking about the costs of poor social safety nets and high income inequality for decades.
A popular one: 225 previous convictions: https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-41055134.html
> A 2015 meta-analysis of broken windows policing implementations found that disorder policing strategies, such as "hot spots policing" or problem-oriented policing, result in "consistent crime reduction effects across a variety of violent, property, drug, and disorder outcome measures".[36] As a caveat, the authors noted that "aggressive order maintenance strategies that target individual disorderly behaviors do not generate significant crime reductions," pointing specifically to zero tolerance policing models that target singular behaviors such as public intoxication and remove disorderly individuals from the street via arrest. The authors recommend that police develop "community co-production" policing strategies instead of merely committing to increasing misdemeanor arrests.[36]
> The strongest program effect sizes were generated by community and problem-solving interventions designed to change social and physical disorder conditions at particular places.
That doesn’t sound like broken windows policing. That sounds like fixing actual broken windows.
It is probably a positive feedback loop: some system collapse causes some petty theft, which causes more system collapse, which causes more petty theft...
> hat these crimes might be increasing (stats that prove that and aren’t junk are “hard to come by”) is evidence not of the theives not holding up their end of the social contract - but of employers, businesses, and governments not holding their end up.
Why not both? Much of the shoplifting in my area is for drug money (at least the blatant kind you get to see up front). Now, one could claim employers are wrong for not letting someone addicted to fent work, but maybe not. Definitely how they got to that point is some fault of society, however.
That is basically irrelevant; example - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-arre...
It's by far not the most people who drive this. Non-enforcement of rules gives the worst individuals free reign. Enforcement works on the margins, and in this case the margins is basically all that matters, at least UNTIL the collapse.
Soon we might see conglomerations of businesses pooling their data together for global customer credibility scores.
Not true in the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-s...
At 11.5% only two years since 1990 have been lower, 2019 and 2000.
I'm no racist. None of the children who were failing were incapable of understanding algebra. But there is a toxic culture that interferes with them wanting to learn it and behaving in ways that allow them to learn it.
It is asinine to say that they have no hope of improving their situation, when the same people are sabotaging themselves from childhood on up.
Sabotage piles up. When those retail stores inevitably flee those regions, there will be even fewer legitimate jobs to go around. There will be so-called "food deserts". And then that too will be blamed on late-stage capitalism and so forth.
If a particular group holds too many regressive tendencies they're going to slide backwards, and unfortunately we are not culturally permitted to point out that their cultural beliefs might be at fault. A non-US example to calm your pitchforks: The 'Travelling Community' in Ireland/UK (a culturally distinct group, though not genetically distinct) believe that formal education is not a worthwhile use of a teenagers time.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwo...
I'll say that after the previous decade or so of watching oligarchs treat the law/decency as a non-entity and seeing zero repercussions, I've lost most of my belief in the law myself. While some might take that as a free license to do whatever they can get away with, personally it's made me evaluate my own morals and try to live as closely to them as I can, and I feel good about myself for living my values.
But I often see the attitude here that I should be a mercenary and work for the highest bidder no matter the social cost of the company that pays the best. I can't help but wonder - what if the best employment available to me was as a member of a retail theft gang?
Is greed good? I don't think so, but it seems to be a core value these days.
Truthfully, the proliferation of crimes like this is a symptom of systems collapse because it evidences the unravelling of a lawful society (or, at least, the pre-existing social order, which may not have been generally “lawful”.)
We bear the cost in the form of needing to pay for police, surveillance cameras, security guards, security software, the justice system, lawyers, and jail cells. The money lost from each stolen good is spread across all other goods in the form of price increases, etc.
We bear the cost in the form of needing to pay for police, surveillance cameras, security guards, security software, the justice system, lawyers, jail cells. The money lost from each stolen good is spread across all other goods in the form of price increases, etcetera.
> shareholders who contribute nothing of value
They are shareholders because someone presumably at some point contributed something to society which resulted in them earning money to invest.
Even if that is true, which it’s not: in a shockingly high number of cases it is actually harming society that got people money. Even if it is true in a specific case - this premise implies that someone at one point contributing something to society entitles them to drain money from everybody else forever.
We all understand how we bear the cost of theft, but i don’t believe that theft is caused by bad people - it’s an inherent byproduct of a system that REQUIRES poverty to function.
It is absolutely true for the vast majority of capital owners.
> entitles them to drain money from everybody else forever
They are not "draining money" by owning capital that produces goods that are then sold for money.
Stealing from those who can afford it, in order to meet your basic needs (housing, food, etc) is not wrong. While taking the fruits of other’s labour because you have money, when you know the result is others not being able to afford their basic needs, is wrong.
This article has plenty of information about the fact that companies aren't building in security measures because they don't want to pay.
Or to put it another way: think about how much better shopping experiences we'd all have if stores weren't constantly understaffed. But they are, and so shopping sucks and shoplifters proliferate.
But teenagers do fuck, so we must deal with the reality of the human condition.
I've had this exact thought while waiting to pay for my purchases and watching people carry armloads of stolen items out the front door.
I think that cuts to the heart of the basis of morality.
Do we need the threat of consequences in the afterlife, if there are no immediate consequences to the self? Are we allowed to do whatever we want now, if we can absolve ourselves of consequences in the afterlife?
And if you don't believe in an afterlife, Do we recognize that these actions can hurt others? Do we have empathy for those that were hurt and try to make them whole? Do we more strictly punish those that abuse that empathy? How about people who simply don't feel any empathy for others, how is that dealt with?
I don't have any good answers for these questions.
Fixing this is the answer, isn't it? Make sure there are consequences. Watch any video of people riding bikes into a CVS and filling trash bags with goods. The employees are scared to do anything. Not only do they not try to stop them, many times they're actively preventing customers from trying to stop them. A minority of the time one of the other customers, who has probably seen this bullshit way too many times, tries to do something.
How about a law saying "if you are an employee of a store charged with loss prevention, security, or anything like that, you have qualified immunity when trying to stop an active theft?" The idea that I can run into a store and start stealing things, then turn around and sue the security guard AND the corporate store for punching me in the face while I'm doing it is ludicrous.
We already have laws that if someone is killed in the commission of a crime you're committing, it's the same as if you killed them. It's not unheard of to say that if you're committing a crime, the laws of liability change.
Qualified immunity from what, though? Pointing and yelling "thief"? Blocking their way? Laying hands on them to detain them? Assault and battery? Deadly force? You can't just allow people to do anything to stop someone from stealing a $5 tube of toothpaste. Where do you draw the line?
Also, what if the employee himself/herself is the one that gets injured? Who has qualified immunity from being responsible? The store?
At least to your last point, if you're stealing from a store and someone gets hurt trying to stop you, you should be responsible whether you hurt them or not, whether it was intentional or not. They slip on something and break their shoulder while they're running after you? No different than you assaulting them and breaking their shoulder directly. Again this isn't the case (at least not to this level) but I think it would be a good change.
I agree with your other point that it's not cut-and-dry, and honestly probably will vary based on state and municipality. There are certainly municipalities where you can do a lot, up to what would otherwise be assault or battery, to prevent theft. And there are some where you can't. But I think in general being a little more permissive with what is allowed, especially in these large corporate stores in large urban areas where this smash & grab type of theft seems to be more prevalent (or maybe just reported on more?), might be a good thing.
Sometime decades ago, the police just stopped policing.
I don't have all the details. We can infer and speculate a bit that it didn't happen at the same time everywhere, all at once. But it can't have been much later than the 1980s or early 1990s, or I would have noticed.
The only thing that the police do with any earnestness or initiative are drug busts, and this is plainly because when they do drug busts they get to keep the proceeds whether that is cash or fast cars (that get new squad car paint jobs). They do the other things (local) politicians want, which is some ticket quota revenue collection once in awhile. They continue to begrudgingly take stolen car reports, because if more than a few voters complained they weren't doing that, eventually some politician somewhere would lose an election or be forced from office.
But there are no repercussions for refraining from any other sort of police work. Those scenes in The Wire where they're trying to convince rape victims not to report it (in that scenario, so their stats would look better)... not just narrative device. When we hear about them not going after a school shooter killing kids in classrooms, and we're straining our brains to explain it and the only thing that comes to mind is cowardice? Well, I've got a simpler, though no less bizarre explanation... it just wasn't in their job description.
This isn't accidental or temporary or bad management. You have Police Chiefs going on Twitter and chastising the public for believing that they should be able to park cars and not have their windows smashed and contents stolen. It is a matter of policy that they no longer do policing. This is backed up by case law that makes it official that they have no duty to the public to protect them from any crime.
Most of all though, you have a public that is somehow willfully ignorant of it, thinks that maybe they're just doing a bad job but doing the job, and if they're patient new people will be hired and maybe they'll start doing it moderately well again. It's baffling.
Cognitive dissonance. I think this is a symptom of a slow western civilzation collapse
It sounded convincing until someone actually researched it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/27/how-year-o...
Some of the largest protests in US history were in opposition to this state of affairs and they were met with violent repression and police being rewarded with even larger budgets WITHOUT the requirement that they actually enforce laws.
Rudi Giuliani would agree. I wouldn't.
I suspect you disagree with me on that. What sort of evidence would you accept that would convince you of my position?