81–90 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Seattle, inside the banks, the tellers are separated from the customers by armored glass and sliding trays. On the other side of Lake Washington, there are no such shields. That kinda says it all.
if you prefer Bellevue go there
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe the data is accurate simply because most crime of this level is not reported because the victims accurately believe nothing will happen.
Do businesses not have insurance? Does this insurance not ask for a police report?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That idea-whatever its merits—wouldn’t explain statistics holding steady during a rise in actual crimes. Unless people are drastically less likely to report crime than in the past, for which there is zero evidence. It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true.
> It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true. You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that property crime goes severely under-reported[1]. Also, people are drastically less likely to report crime when it is obviously nothing will happen and it cost more than the value of whatever was taken. Walmart loses millions on theft every year, they could stop it but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true. You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that property crime goes severely under-reported[1]. Also, people are drastically less likely to report crime when it is obviously nothing will happen and it cost more than the value of whatever was taken. Walmart loses millions on theft every year, they could stop it but…
I think the point is, since the numbers don't show an uptick in property crime while others are reporting an increase, the only explanation for that is for the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen?
> Some former police officials said in interviews that officers don’t feel it is worth making an arrest in low-level cases because they assume the district attorney won’t file charges. They also point to a statewide ballot measure passed in 2014—Proposition 47—that raised the dollar amount at which theft can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950.
> Mr. Boudin has pointed the finger back at the police, arguing that the certainty of arrest is low in San Francisco compared with other cities. More consistent arrests of criminals, he has said, would be a more powerful deterrent than the length of prison sentences.
Regardless of what side you take, combine an increase in crime with the fact it is unlikely that people will be prosecuted or arrested and it seems reasonable to think that could lead people to just deciding it isn't worth the time to report the crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Businesses already do that in many American cities.
In Seattle, inside the banks, the tellers are separated from the customers by armored glass and sliding trays. On the other side of Lake Washington, there are no such shields. That kinda says it all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s just used when actual data doesn’t confirm what people want to be true. You don't have to take my word for it. There are studies to support that property crime goes severely under-reported[1]. Also, people are drastically less likely to report crime when it is obviously nothing will happen and it cost more than the value of whatever was taken. Walmart loses millions on theft every year, they could stop it but…
I think the point is, since the numbers don't show an uptick in property crime while others are reporting an increase, the only explanation for that is for the reporting of property crime to decrease at the exact same time as the actual crime increases. Why would that happen?
Because the same policy causes both. DA's refusing to prosecute encourages shoplifting and discourages reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that retail theft is over-reported and has serious social implications that are outsized for the scale of theft just look at some of the comments here, people calling for increased prosecution of the poor (including jail time) without a mention of the wider scale deeds of the companies most commonly being stolen from
The examples you list are all ones that have resulted in punishments and compensation to the victims. Why would people be outraged with the system working as it should? Of course the news blows almost everything out of proportion, but the general public is more worried about thefts going unpunished with seemingly no recourse.
These are thefts impacting thousands and thousands of people going unpunished without recourse. The companies paying settlements are huge and the settlements are a slap on the wrist. No one sees jail time, no one even loses their job.
Meanwhile CVS and Walgreens are pitching a fit about a homeless person stealing $200 of baby formula to resell to a slightly less poor person and commenters are making calls for increased punishment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Seattle, inside the banks, the tellers are separated from the customers by armored glass and sliding trays. On the other side of Lake Washington, there are no such shields. That kinda says it all.
if you prefer Bellevue go there