SHOPLIFTING
in BRITAIN
and
AMERICA
Anthony Weir
|
In 2005, the cost of retail "shrinkage"
in the U.K. was £4.3 billion: 1.33% of total turnover.
An estimated 38% of this - some £1.5 billion - was
due to theft by employees, some of them, of course, security
staff.
This
page was written a few years before an article appeared
in The Sunday Times (London), of 17th December
2006, averring that shoplifting had now become a serious
pursuit of the hypocritical rich, who claimed to be "resisting"
huge mark-ups, third-world sweat-shops, military dictatorships,
globalisation, and even Swiss smugness - while, of course,
getting something for nothing, which seems to become more
important the richer one becomes.
|
If you are seen to shoplift in France, or Spain, or Germany or
Italy, or any number of European countries, the shop-owner or
the security staff will either come up to you before you leave
the store and remind you to pay for the items you have concealed
about your person, or they will accost you as you leave the store,
bring you to an office, and, with very serious faces, make you
pay for the goods that you attempted to steal.
There
is sometimes a queue of other shoplifters at this busy
'alternative till'.
Sometimes,
they will ask you to pay 10% more than their value - to cover
the costs of hiring security-staff, or as a little bonus to the
diligent shop-assistant. They sell their goods.
In
France, Italy etc. shoplifting is regarded as a technical
offence (like exceeding a speed-limit), committed by students,
the poor, the powerless and depressed - whereas in the more punitive
anglophone countries it is regarded as a moral crime against
society.

Because of this, in anglophone countries the pilferer/thief will
be watched, and allowed to leave the store. Then they will apprehend
her or him dramatically, frog-march him or her back into the store
- and call the police.
In
many stores there are dummy cameras to fool shoplifters. There
are also hidden cameras in different locations designed to entrap
shoplifters. This is, of course, illegal. Security firms are
hired on their (quantitative) reputation for catching shoplifters,
not (qualitatively) for preventing shoplifting (which is
incalculable). Entrapment helps to improve the statistics in a
competitive market. Compared to the fully controlled UK and Ireland,
few
Continental shops are supervised by CCTV - thus saving greatly
on security-expenses!
In
Germany, many shops quite legally display signs announcing that
any
shop-lifter must pay a Fangprämie or reward
- usually Euro 50 - to the store
if caught. This would be unthinkable in Britain. The British would
rather die than attempt to sell the items to you (thus losing
revenue). Nor, if they are watching, do they suggest to you in
the store that it might be a good idea to pay for the goods (thus
losing revenue).
They
actually entrap the 'criminal' and ensure that a crime that has
been committed, so that they can call the police, a most expensive
service for which they pay nothing. The same attitude applies
at a more basic level to motoring: there are cameras and traps
on British roads, but rarely any of the elaborate 'slow-down'
warnings that are so common in France. Radar in Britain is used
mainly to create offenders, whereas radar in France triggers flashing
lights to make the motorist slow down.
By
contrast, In Germany, the act of theft is legally committed onlyif
you hide an item. The Bavarian State Supreme Court pronounced
on this:
A person carrying an item openly, leaving a store in which
he is not physically prevented from leaving [by
way of a barrier etc.], to look at display racks on the
footpath in front, does not commit a theft of said item, even
when turning his back towards the racks...
The
pilferer is kept in a store-room until the police arrive (which
may take a hour or two), he or she is then arrested, cautioned,
taken to a police-station, cautioned again, searched, put into
a cell to wait, then, after half an hour or an hour, interviewed
by detectives (!),fingerprinted, photographed and has a DNA swab
taken from his or her mouth.
Many forms are filled in.
A solicitor (attorney, advocate) may of course be requested by
the criminal. But if he or she, caught in flagrante, 'admits
guilt', this is hardly necessary.
The
process and procedure take an hour or two, the thief is given
back the property that was taken off him on arrival at the police-station,
and is given a piece of paper instructing him or her to attend
a Court hearing on a certain date.
Or
the criminal is kept in the police cell overnight and brought
to Court the next day to be sentenced: to pay a fine or go to
prison.
All
this costs a great deal of money. The shop does not sell its goods.
The police waste their time. The criminal court wastes everyone's
time.
The crime-statistics are boosted - and the prison population,
too.
No
wonder that the United Kingdom has the highest per-capital prison
population in Europe: higher even than Burma/Myanmar or Singapore.
The
compulsive shoplifter goes through this procedure every time he
or she is seen to steal - whether it is a tin of beans, a book,
or a box of candles.
I have seen a shoplifter taken away from Eason's, an ugly,
aggressive stationery chain-store with hidden cameras in Belfast,
for stealing a 2003 Diary which by the end of February 2003 had
been marked down to half-price and was almost unsaleable.

Inevitably regarding all property as theft, always withdrawing
(rather than withdrawn) I was a compulsive shoplifter. That is
to say: a white nigger.
I have been in prison for stealing groceries.
Prison opened my eyes like those of the Sleeping Beauty.
I learned that the British actually like (almost as much as the
punitive Americans) to have a large 'criminal' population to punish:
they live in a feudal culture of revenge and punishment.
Prison was a strange kind of Prince Charming.
I
started as a teenager, stealing books: Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Steinbeck,
Zola, Camus, Salinger, McCullers, O'Connor, Dante, Homer and Proust.
I then graduated to vinyl records, and, living 'below the bread-line'
after I left home, to food, household equipment and the occasional
small objet d'art.
In
Britain, shoplifters are regarded with comfortable outrage.
In France and Italy it is assumed that many people will steal
from shops if they get the chance. In Italy it is a kind of national
sport, like driving through red traffic-lights or ogling pretty
women.
When
scheduled flights to Italy leave large British airports, police
are drafted in to arrest Italians who have stolen small items
from the very-inviting airport shops - who are then very surprised
to miss their flight, spend the night in a police cell, and receive
a hefty fine in court the next day. So, if there are groups of
Italians at an airport, be very careful - even if you are a blond
Finn.
The
Italians and the French, however, recognise that shoplifting is
the silliest and highest-risk of all 'crimes'. That it is, in
fact, a pseudo-crime.
I am not talking about those people who shoplift, often to order,
items worth hundreds or thousands of pounds/dollars/euros.
The chances of an unprofessional being caught are very great,
and the return is tiny.
Small-time shoplifting is either a 'crime of opportunity', and
thus is undetected, or it is a (largely-female) pseudo-crime of
compulsion, whose in-store detection boosts the police success-rates.
The police detection-rate of real crime is unbelievably low: less
than 20%.
Shoplifting
is also a symptom of certain diseases of the brain, especially
Herpes simplex encephalitis. Although I suffer from some obscure
kind of encephalitis (undiagnosed), my shoplifting probably pre-dates
it. In any case, I would not wish to justify shoplifting on medical
grounds, for the medicalisation of society has long since exceeded
the bounds of sanity. I would justify shoplifting from all but
small and specialist shops on the same grounds as the punishers:
supermarkets and chain-stores rip off their suppliers (and ultimately
the planet) causing the poor to get poorer,
themselves and their shareholders to get ever richer.
Neither
the police (of course), nor the judiciary, nor the legal profession
have raised their voices to prevent the ridiculous waste of money
involved in prosecuting people (usually women) who pilfer underwear,
food, or marker-pens. If shops insist on doing everything to make
their goods tempting, they should do their own dirty work. They
happily make a profit of up to 1000% on what they sell - partly,
I suppose, to cover the huge costs of CCTV cameras and the staff
to operate and maintain them.
Britain
with its notorious voyeuristic culture is completely besotted
by Closed-circuit Television systems. Whole towns are under minute
supervision, and many open roads, too. The insane 'War against
Terror' is even more disquieting than you think.

While
Anglophones love to have criminals to fear and punish, they are
amazingly indulgent towards big-time criminals such as Stock-market
insider-fraud, tax-evaders, and other 'white-collar' criminals
who defraud not only the state but pension funds as well. These
are high-status macho criminals. Shoplifting is a female crime
of low status - and, of course, the lower the status of the crime
the more severe the relative punishment. Fiddling expenses, on
the other hand, is almost never prosecuted. It is, more even than
'crimes against humanity', the most common crime of executive
Heads of State.
Had Jean Genet been British,
he would have been executed before he became one of Europe's greatest
and most uncomfortable writers. Genet observed that police depend
on criminals for their job-security and thus are bound into a
vicious circle. The same is true of the anti-shoplifting industry,
which now includes not only 'consultants' but counsellors - richly
feeding off and dependent upon petty criminals.
Only in Britain (and, of course, the United States) would the
compulsive and foolish Oscar Wilde have been so viciously treated.

According to the Facts
About Shoplifting link
on the (semi-literate) Shoplifters
Alternative website, one out of every 11 people in the
United States is a shoplifter.
How denunciatory the other ten people would be is harder to establish.
Ethnic/cultural origin and family background would play a part.
Probably one or two would regard it as relatively harmless and
understandable (given the way goods are displayed in shops where
staff congregate talking around a till), while one or two would
regard it as more outrageous than sexual harassment or religious
or racial intolerance.
Shoplifters Alternative
tells us that now, at last, shoplifting is being looked at as
yet another Process Addiction over which some people could
be powerless. (A Process Addiction is a compulsive behaviour in
which a person becomes dependent on the whole behavioural process
for a result, rather than on a chemical. Gambling, sex, collecting
things and ambition are just four obvious, different and much-encouraged
examples of process addictions.)
An addictive 'rush' can be induced by specific risky behaviours
that can alter a person's emotional state through the release
of adrenaline. As with jay-walking (or bungee-jumping, rock-climbing
or bomb-defusing) the addictive effect of shoplifting is enhanced
by success - i.e. by not being apprehended. People continue to
do it even after they are caught and shamed and fined or sent
to prison.
Shoplifters Alternative
defines two
categories of shoplifters: professional and non-professional.
A professional shoplifter steals to resell merchandise (usually
for a fraction of its retail value), perhaps in order to satisfy
other addictive behaviour such as drug-taking. Although there
are gangs of professionals who steal very expensive items, most
professionals are poor.
The
non-professional shoplifter is someone who obtains some emotional
satisfaction from the process of stealing successfully. This individual
is not stealing just for monetary or material gain but (also)
to medicate a feeling of injustice or an internal conflict.
Reasons
for non-professional shoplifting include the attempt to overcome
unresolved issues toward an authority figure; a sense of social
injustice; a sense of entitlement to overpriced goods (or due
to the aggressive environment of the shop); the relief of stress
through the adrenaline rush associated with the process of stealing;
the abatement of emotional discomfort linked to feelings of depression,
anxiety, anger, grief, powerlessness or boredom.

In
an article titled "Shoplifting Can Be Addictive"
byShoplifters Alternative,
the authors claim to describe the process that occurs as the shoplifter
enters a store until he or she leaves. This alleged dynamic "involves
a concurrent continuum of tension and excitement as the shoplifter
contrives to conceal an item and eventually or quickly leave the
store with it. Tension builds as the shoplifter encounters potential
threats to the process and a sensation of excitement each time
a possible threat, such as a salesperson or hidden camera, is
overcome. The ultimate "high" occurs when the shoplifter's
tension turns into excitement as he or she successfully leaves
the store without being caught. This "high" temporarily
relieves the emotional dilemma, whether positive or negative,
that precipitated the theft process."
This
jargon-filled analysis has been dreamed up by someone who has
never shoplifted. The whole process is stressful, and leaving
the shop without being apprehended does not produce much of a
"high". To complicate the complex, a Shoplifters
Alternative survey
found that 80% of shoplifters said that they didn't even think
about getting caught.
In
another piece of tergid jargon, they say that published reports
suggest that there are no specific demographics that delineate
the profile of the 'typical' shoplifter from others. However,
it has been found that adults steal more than teenagers (only
a small proportion of offenders caught are under 18), and that
one third of those caught find it difficult not to re-offend.
Shoplifters Alternative
considers shoplifting
to be distinct from kleptomania - because 'the stealing-behaviour'
of a kleptomaniac is impulsive rather than due to a compulsive
psychological/physiological need. Kleptomania is also not premeditative.
What many store-owners refuse to realise is that crude
fluorescent lighting, harsh décor, screaming displays
of goods (not to mention tinnily-broadcast aggressive
music and advertising) encourage - if not actually create
- shoplifters.
|
Shoplifters tend, of course, to regard their (often infrequent)
activity as a victimless crime, no matter what background they
have. After the first occasion, many people quickly become addicted
to the little satisfaction of stealing something and getting away
with it. Some, indeed, may not plan to steal when they first go
into a mall or hypermarket or store, but they can't help it once
they're inside. This suggests that there is, after all, no difference
between addictive shoplifting and kleptomania.
Other
websites remark that soon as a new anti-shoplifting measure is
introduced - whether directed against theft by staff (more than
50% of the loss-value of all store-theft) or by potential customers
- people find some way to beat it. Stores, needless to say, spend
millions of dollars trying to stop shoplifters: a bit like trying
to catch water in a sieve. The cost of prevention and of shrinkage
are passed on in the retail price.
"Experts"
say that the most popular stores affected by shoplifters are grocery
stores.
Thefts from retail outlets occur mostly in urban main shopping
areas. The figures for the city of Sheffield (England) have remained
steady over several years at about 3,000 - which is, of course,
is an unquantifiable fraction of offences committed.
The
picture below is criminal in Britain, because one of the photographs
involved in this picture was taken in a slaughterhouse. It is
criminal even to take photographs inside a meat-market. It is
a crime to piss against a wall.
It is a crime for a man to have sexual, especially non-penetrative,
fun with two or more other men.
Never mind that abattoirs are crimes against nature.

The
same viciousness is apparent in America, where it is also a crime
to take photographs in slaughterhouses.
It is interesting that anglophone Britain and America are the
two most moralistic and militaristic Empires in history - and
the two most criminal empires in history - precisely because
of their moralistic hypocrisy.
This (and their attitude to shoplifiting) may have something to
do with the adversarial (rather than investigative) basis of their
legal and political system.
What
a sense of satisfaction I had when I gave away my British Passport.
I have contributed nothing (for example through direct taxation)
to the malignant state, enriched by slavery, that invented capitalism
and its ingenious machines, and waged war against the world for
three hundred years with crimes against humanity and nature, including
speciecide all over the planet, genocide in Australia & Tasmania,
and attempted or partial genocide in India, Burma, Canada, Southern
Africa - and Highland Scotland.
I
am a pseudo-criminal in a criminal state. And I have gone back
to shops which caught and successfully prosecuted me for trivial
appropriation-of-goods offences, and stolen ten times as much
stuff to give away to Charity Shops and the like. As with the
'War on Terror' the war on shoplifters cannot be won.