RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, April 8 - 11:27pm

Link

Edit

I was watching one of these true-to-life cops and robbers shows on TV, in which the proprietor of a convenience store caught a guy trying to sneak out with some merchandise stuffed inside his pants. The proprietor locked the door, so the guy couldn't leave, and called the cops.

When the cops arrived, they told the proprietor there was nothing they could do, because the guy hadn't actually committed any theft. Granted, he had tried to, but since he hadn't left the store with the merchandise, no crime had been committed. The proprietor was flabbergasted, but the cops insisted they couldn't arrest the guy. The proprietor's only alternative, they said, was not to allow him back in the store.

To anyone with a shred of common sense, this view of crime is preposterous, and it is one that results from a failure of philosophy -- from a corrupt view of moral and legal responsibility. The fact that the would-be thief didn't succeed in getting out of the store with the merchandise does not make his act any less blameworthy, because a person can be blamed only for his choices -- only for what he has volitional control over -- and the would-be thief had chosen to steal the mechandise; he just hadn't succeeded.

Suppose the thief had tried to shoot the proprietor, but his gun jammed. Would the cops have said that there is nothing they could do, because although he had tried to shoot the proprietor, he hadn't succeeded?

Postscript: After the cops took the guy outside the store and patted him down for weapons, they discovered two bottles of liquor hidden in his socks. NOW they had a crime, you see, because he was actually outside the store with the merchandise; so they took him to jail.

Give me a break!

Post 1

Wednesday, April 9 - 4:09am

Link

Edit

When the cops arrived, they told the proprietor there was nothing they could do, because the guy hadn't actually committed any theft. Granted, he had tried to, but since he hadn't left the store with the merchandise, no crime had been committed. The proprietor was flabbergasted, but the cops insisted they couldn't arrest the guy. The proprietor's only alternative, they said, was not to allow him back in the store.

The way the law looks at retail fraud has been like this for decades, and there's some actual sense to it, when you think about it (sort of). Suspicion by the clerk doesn't amount to a crime until an actual crime has been committed. Had a crime been committed? Not until a suspected thief leaves the store. Leaving the store implies actual intent.

Years ago, I was sitting in court waiting my turn for some traffic thing. Before me was a case involving a man who was shopping on his lunch hour. He was buying birthday presents for his son. One of the toys was extremely small, so he put it into his pocket while carrying the larger boxes of toys around the store as he continued to shop. Naturally, security was watching the man. When the man went to the counter to pay for the items, he forgot about the toy in his pocket, and was arrested as he approached the door to leave. I believed the man simply forgot about the toy. All security had to do was remind him of the item in his pocket. The man was very embarrassed and would have happily paid for the toy. His case was dismissed as the store could not prove the man intended to steal the toy.

Post 2

Wednesday, April 9 - 9:28am

Link

Edit

Teresa,

If it's not clear that there was intent, fine. But then that standard would apply even if the man had left the store. Whether or not he succeeded in leaving the store should have nothing to do with determining his intent.

In the case I mentioned, the customer's intent to steal the merchandise was not even at issue. Even the cops acknowledged that. They recognized that he had tried to steal it; their argument was that he hadn't succeeded, because he hadn't left the store with it.

It wasn't just a case of absent mindedly placing a small item in his pocket. He was stuffing the merchandise inside his wasteband and down his pants. His intent was clear -- especially the two liquor bottles hidden in his socks. When the evidence is there, it's there. Whether or not he happened to leave the store is irrelevant.

- Bill

Post 3

Wednesday, April 9 - 4:03pm

Link

Edit

Hey, I agree with you, Bill, but how can you say that he actually stole it when he was still in the store? Should there be laws stipulating where and how merchandise should be held while on store property and before it's paid for in order to avoid suspicion and possible arrest? I agree that booze bottles in the socks is a little extreme, but some people are nuts. The law has to draw a line somewhere, doesn't it?

Post 4

Thursday, April 10 - 6:02am

Link

Edit

Bill D' -- I totally agree with you that "an attempted crime is a crime." This issue is a legal curiosity I've wondered about for many years. I've never understood the logic of those who hold the contrary view, even tho' this seems to be the normal US law position. I think, for example, if a given person breaks into your house and tries very hard to kill you, but you manage to survive -- via extreme dexterity and luck -- then that murderous individual should nevertheless be executed. He should not receive some lesser penalty like 5 or 10 years in jail.

In the example you cite, the just response would seem to be a full penalization for theft of merchandise. Why should the store owner suffer, just because he's good at protecting his private property and individual rights? A similar legal penalty should accrue to someone who takes a vicious drunken swing at someone else, but fails to connect. And so too someone who breaks into a car to steal it, but is surprisingly defeated by the anti-theft device. In every instance, my understanding of justice suggests that the perpetrator should pay the full price for his crime, and not receive some lesser punishment (or no punishment, which is truly shocking) just because he got lucky by being temporarily incompetent as a rights-violator and criminal.

Post 5

Thursday, April 10 - 9:11am

Link

Edit

Teresa,

You have to use common sense, and consider the context. People don't stuff merchandise down their pant legs as they walk towards the store exit, ostensibly on their way out, if they don't intend to steal it. If they intended to buy it, they wouldn't try to hide it on their person; they'd bring it to the cashier or proprietor for purchase.

How do you know a mugger intends to rob you? Suppose he doesn't show a gun, but simply says, "I have a gun in my pocket; give me all your money."? He could be lying, right? Maybe it's a joke. Maybe he's crazy. You go with the most reasonable interpretation.

- Bill

Post 6

Thursday, April 10 - 10:12am

Link

Edit

I had a similar instance happen in my business. Someone kept breaking into our vending machines and taking all of the money out of them. So one day our executive housekeeper sees the guy with a crowbar trying to pry open the padlock on one of our vending machines, the thief once having realized someone has seen him runs off. So she tells me and I call the police and we get a description and the car and license plate number of the fleeing criminal. What does the police officer say?

"Did he actually break into the vending machine?"

My response:

"No but he tried to"

His response:

"We can't arrest him unless he actually breaks into the vending machine"

But months later, we had a more serious crime occur where our safe was stolen. The police detective questioning us for clues asked us if we had any suspicions on who did it. We mentioned the vending machine thief and how we got the guy's license plate number, vehicle description etc. but that the police at the time said they couldn't do anything about it. The detective looked astonished "which idiot told you that?" he said. I told him well that's probably why you're a detective, and he's still a patrol officer.

Post 7

Thursday, April 10 - 4:07pm

Link

Edit

"I have a gun in my pocket; give me all your money."?

Now, that is considered a crime.

People don't stuff merchandise down their pant legs as they walk towards the store exit, ostensibly on their way out, if they don't intend to steal it.

Nope, they don't, and if the clerk said, "Hey, Turkey! Come back here and pay for that stuff, or I'll tell the cops you tried to rob me and threatened me with a gun too!" he'd have gotten some action from the law. Lying under this circumstance isn't only moral, it's using common sense, like you said.

It really is the responsibility of the owner to be cognizant of the law, and that means knowing exactly what actions break it, especially if you're going to open a shop in an area with extremely lazy cops like this. They could have easily arrested the would be thief anyway, just on suspicion, but chose not to. Who knows the reason why. Maybe it's a high crime area and the cops didn't want to be taken off the beat for a petty theft, I don't know. Police have a whole lot of discretion when it comes to exercising the law, so I would be just as upset as the store owner in this case. No free coffee and soda for them!
Same goes for John's scenario. The detective's remark was right on the money.

Post 8

Thursday, April 10 - 10:18pm

Link

Edit

You guys have no idea what you are talking about.

1.a. While we expect the police to know the law, the fact is that they do not. That is why criminal justice is a system including prosecutors and courts.

1.b. How anyone claiming to be an "Objectivist" can still believe that the Soviet Agriculture Model works is beyond me. As there is no element of free enterprise in policing, there is no reason to be competent. Police seek to avoid writing reports. However, there are exceptions. Improper arrests (for instance traffic citations) are rewarded because the accused fights the charge and the police officer is paid to go to court.

1.c. It is your responsibilty to know the laws in your state. Certainly, the proprietor of a retail store should know the laws about shoplifting ("retail fraud" or "larceny from a retail establishment" etc.)

2. This started with a "reality" television show. Is that were you find your reality, on television?

3. The Michigan Compilied Laws has 44 (forty-four) citations for attempted crimes, including the very general "attempt to commit a crime" (MCL750.92)

3.a. Check the laws in your state before you pontificate based on idealist suppositions based on television reality.

3.b. See here for state of New York, bench instructions to the Jury for an attempted crime.
New York State Laws include
Section 110.00 Attempt to commit a crime.
        110.05 Attempt to commit a crime; punishment.
        110.10 Attempt to commit a crime; no defense.
3.c. In North Dakota

12.1-06-01. Criminal attempt.
1. A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of a crime, he intentionally engages in conduct which, in fact, constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. A "substantial step" is any conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor's intent to complete the commission of the crime. Factual or legal impossibility of committing the crime is not a defense, if the crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the actor believed them to be.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t121c06.pdf

4. Look also for "inchoate" as well as "attempted" crimes. Look also for "larceny" or "fraud" as well as "shoplifting."

Post 9

Friday, April 11 - 12:43am

Link

Edit

You guys have no idea what you are talking about.

Who is "you guys"?

Post 10

Friday, April 11 - 3:10am

Link

Edit

I was wondering when Mike was going to chime in on this.

Post 11

Friday, April 11 - 9:30am

Link

Edit

For what it's worth, in all the jurisdictions I know. shoplifting boils down to an unlawful taking. Is simply shoving merchandise in your pants a taking? I suppose some goofball could do it as a joke for his friends, then take out the goods before he leaves. Or he could simply think better of taking the stuff and put it back on the shelf. Both the intent and the behavior are ambiguous; they might be criminal; they might not be.

Taking the goods out of the store not an ambiguous behavior, which is probably why most jurisdictions don't bother with shoplifting offenses until the baddy leaves the store. It clearly deprives the owner of the merchandise.

To be sure, attempt crimes usually require some overt act, some definitive step toward the completed crime. One might ask - how can there be attempted shoplifting? One way is that the shoplifter can leave the store with the goods, then go and put them back. Not allowed.

Jordan

Post 12

Friday, April 11 - 3:26pm

Link

Edit

Jordan asks: "Is simply shoving merchandise in your pants a taking?"

Yes, it can be. What counts is "the totality of circumstance." We all agree that leaving the store is proof enough. The question is: What constitutes an "attempt." Suspicious behavior is what it is.

It used to be that running from the police was suspicious. However, the courts have ruled that running from the police when you are innocent could be rational behavior considering what police-citizen interactions can be like.

Now, you can argue here all you want. What counts is how you argue in court and whether the judge believes you.

I was going to go into "what if" but I would rather stick to "what is." Hypotheticals prove nothing, which is why courts will not consider them.

Post 13

Friday, April 11 - 5:00pm

Link

Edit

I don't think Marotta suggested otherwise, but to be sure, a suspicious act alone doesn't amount to an attempt. The attempt is a generally an unmistakable step on the staircase toward the completed criminal act.

That said, I think we all agree that a guy who shoves un-bought goods down his pants is suspicious, which is why the store clerk who locked him in wasn't liable for false imprisonment.

Jordan

Post 14

Thursday, April 17 - 6:46pm

Link

Edit

The real problem here is this noncept "crime." What is a "crime?" Is an auto accident a crime? As opposed to my slapping your face? What if you were seriously injured in the auto accident, even though I never intended to hurt you? Which would you rather - that you be permanently injured even though I never intended to hurt you, or to suffer a stinging cheek that I fully intended? Perhaps if I had been a better driver, the accident would not have happened, so is the fact of my failing to pursue excellence in driving proof of my irresponsibility and thus a crime of negligence? The bottom line is that "crime" only makes sense in an attempt to play God and punish people for their character flaws. Why, as an objectivist, should you be obsessing about whether I have one set of values and virtues or not? If I were your lover or close friend, certainly, but a random stranger????

If I do something that interferes with your use of your body and other property, then I have created a debt to you, and I owe you compensation sufficient that as a rational person, you would not care that I had done so. In a rational society, governed by this common law principle, I should not rationally feel any guilt about temporarily appropriating your property in an emergency or - on the up side - in the face of some huge windfall, knowing that I would have to make everything right with you. And, in such a society, the issue of intent would only come to play as described below.

For those people who either already have or can be predicted to accumulate debts well past their ability to pay them, the solution is not "punishment," but rather exclusion. We might feel more kindly towards someone who through no fault of their own was disabled and only able to live off the charity of others versus someone who perceived his fellow men as a predator percieves prey, but for us dealing with a random stranger as a customer or client, the bottom line is the same.

If there is a problem with shoplifters, then don't let anyone in your door who doesn't have verifiable ID or cash showing that they can and will cover purchases. In a free society, shop-owners would have the option to demand whatever verification of personal worth and integrity they chose before allowing admittance to their store, and everyone would probably carry an electronic card or other ID that showed whether or not they should be trusted.

An attempted crime is a crime