Why Do They Keep the Stuff You Shoplifted

I shoplifted some stuff. Not only do I have to pay for the stuff ($50 worth) but then a fine of sorts on top of it. Dealt directly with the store, no cops. Shouldn't I at least get the stuff after I pay for it? To me that is the STORE stealing from you!!!!! I am paying them $50 for mechandise I won't get plus a fine of their own on top of it. Isn't that stealing from me if I pay the $50 for the stolen merchandise but then don't get to keep it?

I'm sort of inclined to agree with you. The legal concept is called "conversion." Say you steal someone's car, but it is later recovered by the police. In addition to you being criminally prosecuted, the owner of the car can take you to court, sue you, and force you to buy the car. But even then you get to keep the car.

While you're right that if you're forced to pay for the goods, on top of the civil demand and the criminal prosecution, it's reasonable you should get to keep the goods, there's nothing to be done about it. You're clearly not going to litigate over $50 worth of stuff (even if you had a case, which you may not). And your complaints to the police are going to fall on deaf ears. What's more, making a stink about it could well result in the store having you criminally prosecuted.

Let it go.

The civil demand has nothing to do with ownership of the products in question.

You are paying a fine for stealing. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Quoting rogernash

---

I shoplifted some stuff. Not only do I have to pay for the stuff ($50 worth) but then a fine of sorts on top of it. Dealt directly with the store, no cops. Shouldn't I at least get the stuff after I pay for it? To me that is the STORE stealing from you!!!!! I am paying them $50 for mechandise I won't get plus a fine of their own on top of it. Isn't that stealing from me if I pay the $50 for the stolen merchandise but then don't get to keep it?

---

:wallbang: OMG...the store is stealing from YOU...:wallbang:

What comes around goes around, roger. Let's just call it karma:D

I would say....

Because you did not purchase it. Therefore, they keep it and sell it to someone who does purchase it.

Yes, the Civil Demand is still fair: The stores have to hire security teams, purchase surveillance cameras/tapes, have them installed and maintained, use up space for a L.P. office (instead of extra floor or backstock space); oh yeah...and desks and computer systems for the L.P. office....

And then there is what they lose to the shoplifters not caught....

A fine is reasonable.

Forcing the purchase of goods and not giving up the goods is not reasonable. Elsewhere in our civil law, when we force the purchase of goods, we require the seller to give up the goods--even to miscreants. Elsewhere in civil law, juries are asked to assess actual economic damages separately from punitive damages. That's because the punitive aspects of the law are properly kept separate from the remedial aspects of law.

Here legislatures have disguised a punitive measure--forcing shoplifters to pay for goods--as a civil recovery measure. How do we know it's a punitive measure and not a real civil recovery measure? Because the merchants aren't actually required to give up the goods. The shoplifter has an additional de facto fine slapped on him on top of the statutorily authorized civil demand, and any fines and other sanctions that accrue in the criminal processes.

The real legislative intent here is punitive, not remedial. Legislatures should at least be upfront about that, and call it a punitive fine that they're letting private merchants take the benefit from. The public might have a very different reaction to fines being paid to private parties than they do to what is billed as merchants getting "civil recovery" for "stolen goods."

Or then again they might not. The public might be perfectly okay with it. The point is, legislatures shouldn't disguise their motives as "civil recovery" when what they're doing is really punitive. I'm just advocating truth in advertising.

Even with civil demand recoveries, shoplifters cost retailers vastly more than they are able to recover. Even with civil demand payments, the average shoplifter has pocketed a lot more merchandise than the civil demand amount would pay for. Honest people (like me) pick up the difference.

So, as they say, cry me a river.

All these threads! Damn!
How's this for an answer?
STOP STEALING ALREADY!

Stores keep the stuff <--- yeah they do

Here's an example
All of the items you see on the shelves belong to walmart until the consumer pays for the merchandise!

Consumer doesn't pay for the merchandise --- bad move because the items STILL belong to walmart. By not paying, the store will be really mad and chase the consumer down by using LPs. Once the consumer is caught, the consumer signs papers in the back room and a civil demand letter comes in the mailbox. Walmart gets the mailing address from the consumer's ID.