Ruthie has discovered that whilst she has been preoccupied of late with rapists and murderers, the Police have stopped prosecuting shoplifters, but instead, are issuing fixed penalty notices (for hauls less than £200 in value), rather like parking fines.
I’m sure the logic behind this decision goes something like this: the costs of arresting, processing, charging and punishing shoplifting is far is excess of the costs lost and the moral culpability of the crime. Therefore fixed penalty notices (which are not treated as criminal convictions nor recorded on a persons criminal record) are both proportionate and expedient.
Is shoplifting truly comparable to parking infringement in terms of moral culpability? Ruthie does not recall any 11th commandment that prohibits leaving ones motorised vehicle in a restricted zone. Shoplifting is symptomatic of the general dishonest character, e.g. the person who is content to steal from Woolworths is less likely to be troubled about stealing from their boss. Employers would be interested to know if their applicant has a predilection for stealing.
Many shoplifters are otherwise law-abiding and middle class. A criminal conviction for dishonesty for someone in employment may well lead to loss of livelihood. Since the average shoplifter hauls £150 of goods, a brief calculation of the statistics of getting caught, set against the penalty, tends to suggest an economic advantage from shoplifting. And no doubt like most activities in life, the more frequent the act, the more skill with which it is performed, therefore increasing the odds against getting caught.
The penalty ticket system has turned shoplifting into a form of gambling. But since this present government seems keen on promoting gambling then the penalty ticket system is an accordance with general policy.
No comments yet.