Stores’ Treatment of Shoplifters Tests Legal Rights

The New York Times ^ | 21 June 2010 | COREY KILGANNON and JEFFREY E. SINGER

[Palter]

The A & N Food Market on Main Street in Flushing, Queens, has an almost entirely Chinese clientele. The inventory includes live eels, turtles and frogs, frozen duck tongue and canned congee. These goods, like products sold in every neighborhood of the city, attract their share of shoplifters. But A & N Food Market has an unusual way of dealing with the problem.

First, suspected shoplifters caught by the store’s security guards or staff members have their identification seized. Then, they are photographed holding up the items they are accused of trying to steal. Finally, workers at the store threaten to display the photographs to embarrass them, and to call the police — unless the accused thieves hand over money.

“We usually fine them $400,” said Tem Shieh, 60, the manager, who keeps track of customers on 30 video monitors in the store’s surveillance system. “If they don’t have the money, then we usually hold their identification and give them a chance to go get it.”

The practice of catching suspected shoplifters and demanding payment is an import from China, several experts in retail loss prevention said, where there is a traditional slogan that some storekeepers post: “Steal one, fine 10.” Whether this practice is legal in the United States is open to interpretation.

New York State law allows “shopkeepers’ privileges” that fall somewhere between the police and a citizen’s arrest. The law also details “civil recovery statutes,” by which retailers may use the threat of a civil lawsuit to recover substantial settlements for even minor thievery. But threatening to report that someone has committed a crime can be considered a form of extortion.

Neither the Police Department nor the Queens district attorney’s office said it had received any complaints about the practice.

[Little Ray]

If the solution is satisfactory to both the shopkeeper and the thief, why should the effin’ government be involved?

[Graybeard58]

eel is always better fresh.

After much consideration, I've decided to take your word for it.

[dennisw]

you got the right idea...

[Myrddin]

If the solution is satisfactory to both the shopkeeper and the thief, why should the effin’ government be involved?

Because we are a nation of laws. It is the proper place of government to protect the citizens from criminal acts. What if the solution isn't satisfactory? Should the merchant be able to amputate a right hand on the spot for the theft of a piece of bubble gum? A gold ring? What is just? The law provides a means to discern the magnitude of the offense and the proper punishment for the offender and restitution to the victim. What does the merchant do if the thief is part of organized crime that threatens to kill the merchant if the crime is reported?

[Little Ray]

Laws are means to an end (a livable, civil society), and not an end in themselves (except maybe to lawyers and judges, of course).

Read the article. If both thief and the merchant are not satisfied with the resolution, they both have the option of calling the cops. Neither side is complaining, so its working. Its as good an example of a community policing itself as I’ve ever seen. No reason to mess it up with cops, courts, and lawyers, none of whom have either party’s best interests at heart.