The Pettiness of Thievery
Sensational news stories about smash-and-grab retail theft are abundant. The stories stir the imagination with visions of roving gangs sowing loss, harm, and destruction far and wide. What distinguishes such acts from “petty” shoplifting? Is it the wanton violence and destruction? I would argue that the crimes vary only in matters of degree and that neither should be accepted or excused. Decrying one and (reluctantly) accepting the other, gives rise to a “distinction without a difference.” When you excuse and enable bad behavior, you invariably get more of the same, never less.
In the minds of some, shoplifting is an act infrequently committed by misguided youths: A pack of gum here … a tube of lipstick there. Some may even see it as a perverse “right of passage.” However, professional thieves are often known to employees as repeat offenders. Their thefts are planned and systematic. Combined losses arising from retail theft — both internal and external — total approximately $100 BILLION annually. In less than a decade, the dollar amount of such thefts has more than doubled. These thefts represent offenses not only against the stores but also against other customers and the public generally, who must bear not just costs but also the inconvenience of additional security measures.
According to a Capital One report, stores catch shoplifters roughly 2.0% of the time, and the average shoplifter is arrested once out of every 100 incidents. Factoring in the expected “profit” (i.e. ill-gotten gains), the cost-benefit analysis is not difficult. The thieves know that there is little risk of being caught or being prosecuted, and even if prosecuted and convicted, the penalties represent little deterrent to those, who are inclined to steal. It has been known for years that many retail stores have a policy of no confrontation with regard to shoplifters. It is almost like leaving your home unlocked with a sign on the front lawn: “Out of town for the week … Valuables inside.” What might you expect to happen?
I remember one managerial level friend describing a frequent flyer, who brazenly walked into the store, made eye contact with employees, sauntered over to a display, gathered an armload of merchandise, and walked out under the watchful eye of employees, including himself.
I have personally stood with another store manager, as she commented, under her breath, about a shoplifter leaving the store: “Honey, if you’re going to stuff it under your clothes, don’t leave it dangling out the back.” As I turned to look in the direction of the exit, several persons were walking out, one of whom had conspicuous bulges, and dangling from the rear was an article of clothing with the store’s price tag clearly visible.
I can understand why retailers and their employees are reluctant to confront persons, who steal from them, even when they do so openly and brazenly: People are crazy, and there is a desire not to endanger employees. These are not kids on a misadventure. The losses amount to exceedingly more than a penny here or a dollar there. Nevertheless, these crimes are viewed by many as “petty” or unimportant. Law enforcement and courts have “bigger fish to fry.” (I would argue that the reason is because we have failed to “nip such things in the bud.”) Even if shoplifters are caught, they are likely to be back repeating their offenses in a matter of days, weeks, or months. When the “slap on the wrist” loses its sting, conviction serves as no deterrent.
Some among society go so far as attempting to excuse and explain away criminal behavior, as being indicative of environmental factors (i.e. poverty, challenging circumstances, bad home life, lack of opportunities, etc.) or even being the fault of society at-large. The willingness to excuse and ignore the wrong acts of others is tied to a pervasive and expanding culture of victimhood. Many of those, who encourage understanding and forgiveness, do so not out of altruism or grace but because they wish the same considerations and accommodations for their own bad acts.
I can only imagine the crimes and offenses that this misguided mindset would have excused just a generation or so ago, when nearly every person lived at a subsistence level. It is tantamount to extortion: “If you give me more, then I will steal less from you.” Morality is not situational or conditional. It is wrong to steal, no matter the person of the thief or the object of the theft. Regardless, these persons rarely steal to satisfy sustenance needs. They are motivated not by need but by selfishness, jealousy, envy, and greed. They steal because they want to do so. They steal because they can.
Able to steal with impunity, they are emboldened. Over time, the stakes rise, as well as the dangers. One who readily and routinely engages in “petty” crimes is likely to graduate to major crimes. A lack of respect for laws and morals rarely improves over time, particularly when crime is profitable and without serious consequence. As the incidence of crime grows, the willingness and ability of society to police itself wanes: “We do not have the time and resources to devote to ‘this.’” The result is that immorality becomes so commonplace as to be expected, accepted, and normalized. What then?
