Crime prevention series

Prosecution as a deterrent

Published in:
Preventing retail crime
Susan Geason and Paul R Wilson
Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992
ISBN 0 642 17047 9 ; ISSN 1031-5330
(Crime prevention series) ; pp. 17-18

Apprehension

Does catching and prosecuting shoplifters prevent shoplifting? Does it deter those who are caught, all shoplifters, anybody? Given that prosecuting shoplifters is expensive, it is worth while looking at the value of apprehending thieves.

There is a certain amount of pessimism among retailers about the possibility of apprehending thieves, and some disagreement about the benefit of prosecuting them. Hard-liners insist on charging those they catch, while others find it too expensive and time-consuming to go to court about shoplifting. Many find it simpler to factor the cost of theft into the retail price and let the community as a whole bear the brunt. Who is right?

While most merchants would see failing to take some action against shoplifters as offering thieves an open invitation, it is not clear that juveniles and amateurs consider the consequences of apprehension, let alone a store's policy on shoplifting. They act on impulse, responding to an opportunity, and do not expect to be caught. Neither do professional shoplifters.

A survey of 1301 non-professional shoplifters was carried out by Shoplifters Anonymous in the United States. According to that study, 54 per cent of the respondents admitted theft patterns ranging from once a day to once a month. The psychological pattern that emerged was high tension during the theft, followed by euphoria (Canton 1987).

Canton postulates that amateur shoplifters become habituated to the high they get from successful thefts and that, by breaking the pattern and eliminating the euphoria, apprehension deters those who are caught from offending again. He also suggests that a non-apprehension policy may produce more theft in a store by lowering the morale of employees and stimulating some of them to theft.

Finally, he says that the decision whether to apprehend shoplifters must be weighed in the context of the store and its environment--size, location, volume of business, personnel, and most importantly, the percentage of shortage attributed to shoplifting. It may well be more cost effective for a small businessperson to ask shoplifters to leave than try to apprehend them.

On-the-spot warning for first offenders

A warning system for shoplifters was tried out in New South Wales and is now in operation in Victoria. For a first offence where the value of goods was less than $50, police issued a warning on the spot and the details were entered into the police computers. For theft ranging in value from $50 to $100 the offender could either receive an infringement notice of $100 or be charged; over $100, the offender would be charged. All subsequent offenders would be charged, regardless of the value of the goods stolen.

The objectives of the scheme were to reduce time spent by police processing first offenders for shopstealing; reduce the involvement of retail security staff following the detection of a first offender for shopstealing; increase the reporting rate of offenders detected to increase early identification of persistent offenders; ease the trauma of apprehension for some first offenders; and ward off criticism of police for introducing certain offenders to the criminal justice system.

According to a spokesman for the New South Wales Retail Traders' Association, only 7 per cent of people issued with the on-the-spot warning were caught re-offending.