Comment by AngryData

I have yet to see any actual evidence of such a problem, just a bunch of outrage from social media commentators who also claim things like Portland was burnt to the ground by BLM and other hyper-exaggerated crap.

And even if it is true, I still don't see why premeditated charge stacking should be allowed. If someone comes into the store that they know will steal, they should be banned from the store and arrested for trespassing then and there. Shitty criminal justice policies does not justify creative abuses of the law by corporations or prosecutors. Having 25% of the world prison population, along with all the costs that go along with it does not benefit us, it only hurts us. And it has repeatedly been shown that stiffer criminal charges do not prevent crime, if it did the US would be one of the safest 1st world countries, not the most dangerous 1st world country by a large margin that makes countries without actual functioning government seem peaceful.

>I thought it was because the stores can't press charges if it's a small thing, so the only way they can bring any action is to build a case.

Firstly, stores don't "press charges." A store may report a crime, but it is the state that "presses charges" and prosecutes alleged criminal activity, not the store.

Secondly, in the US, we have statutes of limitation[0] which limit the time in which criminal charges can be brought. These vary by state and by offense, but IIUC Petit (sometimes referred to as 'Petty') Theft usually has a one or two year statute of limitations.

I bring that up as, again IIUC, other countries (notably the UK) do not have such limitations.

IANAL, but I'm not sure if multiple petit thefts (usually misdemeanors) can be aggregated into a single charge of grand theft[0] (a felony). I'd expect that also varies by state. YMMV.

[0] Once again, this varies by state, but petit theft (larceny) is typically charged for stuff valued at less than $5,000.00, while grand larceny is for stuff valued at USD5,000.00 or more.

Stores don't decide whether to charge someone with a crime, the prosecutor does. They probably wait for small to become big because shoplifting a small amount doesn't reach a high enough bar to make prosecuting likely.

I'm not a trained cashier, if I forget to scan something it's not the same as theft. Not sure how it would play out in a court situation but this is always my go-to when I get accused of fucking something up in the store; also why I decline the receipt check at the door (legal in my state).

Most professional cashiers are only trained in one merchant's POS. Suddenly, me a layman consumer is supposed to be a flawless operator of every variant of self-checkout POS that I encounter. It's a bit crazy to me that a court would side with a merchant unless some egregious evidence or pattern had could be demonstrated.

If we weren't making shoplifting not a crime, then we wouldn't be having that worry right now.

Do you have ANY evidence that sending someone to jail for a few months to a few years sets people on a straight path?

I am pretty sure the evidence shows the opposite.

Rehabilitation and support is not what "people" want. Political parties that want more punishment seldom want to spend money even on punishments. So it becomes impossible to put people on a straight path. Having courts do their job is very expensive as well so instead people build their careers on getting fast convictions of people. The thing that helps is consistently building a society that cares, you have to know that the society will certainly react to your actions.

Having a hidden social credit system hidden and managed by a private actor seems like the worst way of doing it.

>stack up the habitual offenders and send them to jail for a few months to few years setting them on straight path.

I'm not sure if you have been to an American jail but they do not set folks on the straight path. They are basically Crime University, and the folks on the inside trade all kinds of information about how to crime more effectively, where to crime, what tactics police use and what neighborhoods are safest or most dangerous for police activity.

I was thrown in lockup for a weekend for not changing my tags after moving and letting it escalate out of control and what I saw in that inner city lockup truly shocked me. Folks had incredible amounts of illegal goods on them (despite having been searched and thrown in jail) and were openly performing transactions, sharing "industry secrets" and coordinating for future work once they were out.

If you have spent any time in an American jail or prison, I think you would be disabused of the notion that you can simply lock a criminal up for a few months and "fix" them. I would suggest that it's the opposite, a few months in jail turns a newbie criminal into a true amateur or journeyman with networking, education and future opportunities.

No, that's been disproved. Most people don't consider that they'll be caught and so the penalty isn't relevant to their thought process. What does deter is a high likelihood of being caught - so a small fine will be more effective if the detection/enforcement is sufficient. Also, it's often not feasible to tie up the courts and jails with minor offenders (e.g. speeding, using a bus lane etc).

cut off their hands as a punishment

I feel like if the rules are going to change like this, they should change fairly. A few months in jail for what would have been petty crime if not for the repetition seems excessive. If right now there's a lower cash value threshold for prosecution, the fair thing is that there should be a lower rate threshold. For example, someone shouldn't be jailed for stealing a thousand dollars worth of batteries over the course of ten years, I don't think.

No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.

The difference is that you are informed and penalised each time, rightly giving you the option to change your behaviour. A police officer following a speeder to deliberately have enough offences to take their license immediately would be at least frowned upon in most jurisdictions.