ExpertLaw.com Forums

Civil Action Against Shoplifters

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 4 Next LastLast
  • 05-06-2008, 08:39 AM
    panther10758
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Nest time you pay higher prioces at market of a friend in retailis laid off gets reduced hours or even loses benefits remember your child played a role in that. also keep in mind that Civil Demand helps reduce cost to retailers (thus helping reduce the aforementioned) of shoplifting.
  • 05-06-2008, 12:16 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting Surprised2BHere
    View Post
    If anyone wants to answer the legal question, I'd love to hear it. As parents of the accused, we feel bad enough already, and trust me, this is not something we take lightly.

    The legal answer is - Yes, in many/most states they can hit you with both restitution and civil penalties.

    - Carl
  • 05-10-2008, 03:47 AM
    DH405
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting panther10758
    View Post
    I now see why your so in favor of the thief your adult child is one

    http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48611

    If you look further up this same thread, they had already mentioned that. You're revealing a known fact and acting like you're Dick Tracey here.

    You are taking the OP's argument and applying a counter-argument that is out of left field. You say that the thief must pay extra for the anti-theft, surveillance, LP staff, etc etc. This is ridiculous.

    The thief should receive an appropriate punishment to fit the crime. It's about proper proportions. You don't put a drunk driver in the chair because ANOTHER drunk killed a family of three. What you are suggesting is to punish the thief for their crime and THEN also punish them for the crimes of others.

    I knew a girl years ago who was caught stealing food from Wal-Mart because she couldn't afford to eat. She was dead broke because our fine state, Oklahoma, thinks $5.15 is a livable wage. She was caught, arrested, charged, she paid fines.. and THEN Wal-Mart hits her with a demand for $500.

    Say what you will about civil and criminal, this is double jeopardy plain and simple. She ended up scraping together every dime she could to pay some law firm in Florida. I was having to bring her groceries because she couldn't eat. She was nearly evicted from her apartment. Why? So that she can pay for her crime many times over? I thought that wasn't what WE did here in the USA.
  • 05-10-2008, 06:53 AM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    So, to recap.

    Shoplifting is bad. Bad for the retailer. Bad for the shoplifter.

    Each shoplifter is going to end up paying thousands of dollars in court costs, legal fees, civil demands and fines regardless of the cost of the original item.

    If the amount stolen is high enough or so damaged it cannot be sent back to the floor, this WILL be prosecuted in a criminal court of law and COULD be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the amount.

    Yes, THOSE kinds of felonies and misdemeanors that keep you from getting admitted to the bar or to med school. THOSE kinds of crimes that show up in criminal background checks.

    THOSE kind of crimes that can keep you from the life you want to have.

    I understand that those that are caught don't like the fact they are being hit with the financial cost of all those shoplifters that are not caught.

    I don't like the fact that my taxes go up to support art that stinks. We all have our burdens.

    If you don't want to pay this one, don't steal. If you steal, at least put on your big boy panties and fess up.

    Oh... and leave off the "I am really a good person other than the grand theft I just attempted" from your post. We really don't need to hear that on every one.
  • 05-10-2008, 06:59 AM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting DH405
    View Post
    Say what you will about civil and criminal, this is double jeopardy plain and simple. She ended up scraping together every dime she could to pay some law firm in Florida. I was having to bring her groceries because she couldn't eat. She was nearly evicted from her apartment. Why? So that she can pay for her crime many times over? I thought that wasn't what WE did here in the USA.

    Double jeopardy is being criminally tried for the same crime twice.

    Much like OJ's case where he was found innocent of murder in the criminal court but guilty in the civil court, there is an established dual role of the courts.

    One is to punish lawbreakers. We call that criminal.

    One is to make whole the victim. We call that civil.

    Any crime can have both components.

    Oh, and before you start waving the flag over your poor friend the thief, I don't remember any part of the Constitution that protects theft by taking.

    Hmmm... nope.

    How about what is written on the Statue of Liberty?

    Give us your tired and your poor.
    Your huddled masses yearning to breath free
    The wretched refuse of your teaming shores


    Nope... nothing there about "be nice to thieves" week.

    Sorry.

    Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

    The time to figure out if you can afford the civil penalty is before you steal.

    Last but not least... you think it is unfair to make your friend pay for the actions of all of the other thieves.

    How do you think I feel when I have to pay for their actions through higher prices and intrusive security?
  • 05-10-2008, 12:40 PM
    DH405
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    Double jeopardy is being criminally tried for the same crime twice.

    Yeah, I think I happen to KNOW what it means in legal interpretation as set by the Judicial branch of the US Gov't. Thanks for the update on that one, friend.

    I'm going more for the definition as held by the English language.

    dou·ble (dbl) adj. - Twice as much in size, strength, number, or amount: a double dose.
    jeop·ard·y (jpr-d) n. - Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

    Seems to fit for me.
  • 05-10-2008, 12:53 PM
    cdwjava
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting DH405
    View Post
    Yeah, I think I happen to KNOW what it means in legal interpretation as set by the Judicial branch of the US Gov't. Thanks for the update on that one, friend.

    I'm going more for the definition as held by the English language.

    dou·ble (dbl) adj. - Twice as much in size, strength, number, or amount: a double dose.
    jeop·ard·y (jpr-d) n. - Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

    Seems to fit for me.

    Unfortunately for your purposes, the law recognizes the LEGAL definition, NOT the interpreted definition of the combining of two separate words from the dictionary.

    "Double jeopardy" is a specific legal construct, not the mere merging of two words. By your definition there would be no such thing as a retrial, either.

    - Carl
  • 05-10-2008, 12:55 PM
    aaron
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    ice (\ˈīs\) n. - Water in its frozen state.
    cream (\ˈkrēm\) n. - The yellowish part of milk containing from 18 to about 40 percent butterfat.

    So obviously, "as held by the English language", "ice cream" is a cup of cream with ice cubes in it.
  • 05-10-2008, 03:02 PM
    cyjeff
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    Quote:

    Quoting DH405
    View Post
    Yeah, I think I happen to KNOW what it means in legal interpretation as set by the Judicial branch of the US Gov't. Thanks for the update on that one, friend.

    Then why are we having this discussion?

    And I ain't your friend.

    As for the update part, that legal definition has been on the books roughly 200 years.

    Quote:

    I'm going more for the definition as held by the English language.

    dou·ble (dbl) adj. - Twice as much in size, strength, number, or amount: a double dose.
    jeop·ard·y (jpr-d) n. - Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.

    Seems to fit for me.
    But you already established that you knew that the legal definition was different.

    Just because you are related to a thief doesn't mean the rest of us have to adjust our thinking.
  • 05-13-2008, 10:15 AM
    Surprised2BHere
    Re: Civil Action Against Shoplifters
    I wasn't even going to step back into this "debate" because I certainly felt like there wasn't anyone here who could give me the right answer (if there even is one)... but one thing prompted me to reply again...

    Quote:

    One is to punish lawbreakers. We call that criminal.

    One is to make whole the victim. We call that civil.
    This is EXACTLY how I understand the law, and was not arguing otherwise. It's the "make the victim whole" part where it all falls down for me -- and it's based on what I've read, not experience.

    Johnny and Marty get in a car accident. It's Marty's fault, he was drunk. The police arrest him and he's convicted of a DUI. He pays his fine and does his time.
    Johnny, who wasn't hurt, sues Marty for the costs to fix his car... $2000.

    Now what should happen? Should Marty be ordered to pay to fix Johnny's car -- the $2000, the amount that would make him whole. -- or should Marty have to pay for every other car accident Johnny ever got into and all the insurance he's had to pay for the last 10 years he's been driving?

    I DO understand that thieves have to pay for the crimes they commit. The only question I've been asking all along is when is it the the civil recovery demanded is unreasonable? There are others out there questioning it, which is what prompted me to even think about it and question it. There was recently a post on here about a mom who's kid stole an item worth $1.50 and was ordered to pay $350 in civil recovery. Can you explain to me... LEGALLY... how that is justified? Why is the crime of shoplifting treated differently, in the sense of the arguments made here that the thief should pay for the crimes of others?

    I'll say it over and over... I'm not trying to get my child out of ANYTHING. There's been no civil demand at this point and we are way too early in the criminal process to even know what the outcome is going to be. We FULLY intend to have our kid comply with whatever is dished out because that is the right thing to do. This is a QUESTION of curiosity and only hypothetical.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3 4 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved