Retailers as Victims of Crime (From Retailers as Victims of Crime - Proceedings, P 38-41, 1983, C R Bevan, ed. - See NCJ-92065)

• NCJ Number: 92068
• Author(s): B R Brown
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

This paper examines some of the circumstances contributing to the increase in shoplifting, the obtaining of evidence sufficient to sustain a shoplifting charge, and the courts' handling of shoplifting cases.

Abstract

Modern marketing practices, which place the consumer in direct contact with merchandise often unsupervised by retail personnel, have increased opportunities for shoplifting. In obtaining evidence sufficient to obtain a conviction on a shoplifting charge, there has been a substantial reduction in the involvement of police officers in prosecutions for stealing from retail stores. The trend is for police officers to listen to the allegation made by the employee witness in the presence and hearing of the defendant and to ask the defendant if the allegation is correct. Should the defendant acknowledge the allegation, then the police officer can testify to this. It is not sufficient, however, for a defendant to have only admitted to leaving the store with merchandise not paid for. A guilty intent must be established. A store manager other than the apprehender may question a suspect prior to police intervention, providing the suspect has been informed of his/her right not to answer any questions. If the store manager is satisfied as to the correct identity and address of the suspect, the suspect may subsequently be issued a summons rather than be subject to arrest. In interviewing the defendant, whether with or without police assistance, he/she should be asked why he/she left the store without paying for the merchandise. If criminal intent is not admitted and there is little or no evidence to establish such intent, then it may not be wise to bring charges, since criminal intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Retailers frequently complain about the leniency afforded persons charged with shoplifting or fraud upon retail stores. There is some justification for this complaint, although the court must consider factors in sentencing other than punishment and deterrence. Finally, retailers must accept the responsibility of finding ways to prevent victimization.