Mr. McDonald said that if Ms. Thompson’s daughter took
the groceries without scanning them properly, it was
by mistake. Video surveillance, reviewed by The New
York Times, shows her daughter trying to scan and
rescan groceries at the checkout machine for about 17
minutes.
I really have a mixed impression of self checkout lanes, as they currently exist. Ten years ago, if you had asked me if they sound like a good idea, I have responded with an emphatic yes.
But experiencing them on perhaps a monthly basis these days, I’ve developed an overwhelming urge to avoid them at all costs. And not because of incidents as described by this article.
It’s reached the point that even when I’m holding a single item, and there are five people with full shoppings carts in front of me, I get annoyed at people who suggest self checkout to me. I know damn well that there’s a self checkout lane, and it’s my time to waste. I’m waiting in precisely the lane I intend to be in.
Even though I totally agree that working a cash register should very nearly be an anachronistic job at this point, self checkout lanes are a horrid abomination in their modern form. Waiting for these machines to prompt me through the task of ringing my own items up is so far from my own experiences of actually working as a cashier, that I shake my head in dismay nearly every time.
When I used to work register at no less than ten other jobs, I could rip through a collection of 20 or 30 items in a minute or less (as long as barcodes or price tags were legible), and accept payment as fast as you could hand it to me. But self checkout prompts. Stops. Waits. Prompts. Stops. Fails. Back to square one. Prompt. Wait... Wait... Prompt. And so on.
Why is it so bad? Why is it worse than vending machines? So much worse. And restaraunts are trying to pull the same trick. Self service touchscreens leave you sitting at tables, unserved for half an hour, until you walk over to the bar and complain.
The key gem I remember from an UI/UX rant posted here recently[0] is this: computer should wait on humans, not the other way around. This is what I hate about self-checkout machines. The process is infuriatingly slow. I could get out there in 1/10th of the time if the stupid machine wasn't so full of modal dialogs, talking, and if not for the weird delays in processing of the scanned barcode. Just let me scan items as fast as I can pick them up from my basket, and then press a button and pay.
I can't imagine how you can fail so spectacularly at your job as to design the self-checkout experience, so I'm forced to believe that all those issues are there on purpose.
A few years ago Target changed their self checkout machines to be less infuriating. It doesn't yell at you to place your item in the bagging area and then yell at you for putting an unexpected item in the bagging area. It lets you scan items as fast as you want. When I use some other store's self checkout machines it's a serious step backwards.
Then, once one is abroad not speaking the local language and switches the self-checkout to English, a loud voice sounds out (louder than the voice in native language) "START YOUR CHECKOUT, SCAN YOUR ITEMS", basically screaming "this is a foreigner, they have no idea what they are doing", only adding to the stress level.
Maybe the machine is not designed for your expectation of a bad ass checkout experience. Maybe the main considerations are getting acceptable performance when used by people with an extremely wide range of technical literacy and cognitive skills.
It’s the assumption that people (clients) are stupid and frauds (weighting items, „unexpected item!”), plus the fact that creating the software is created at the lowest possible cost. Yes that’s the future - the quantity of resources and services is fixed, robots and machines will guard people from accessing them, while overzealously detecting and punishing potential frauds. The profits from "automating out" the things will not go the pocket of the consumer/end user/client/claimant.
As others have pointed out, I've used two kinds of self-checkout mechanisms in grocery stores (France).
The mechanism in as shown in the article (bring all the bags to the check-out lane, scan, weight, pay) is just horrid, and way slower. I just go to the regular checkout in these cases. I've seen a store which replaced all regular queues with self-checkout lanes, and now I just avoid it.
The second method is by taking a barcode gun with you at the entrance, scan the items as you go, and simply pay at the exit. There are random-rechecks, but they are performed by the cashier, so they're quick. On average, it's actually faster, and I do prefer this method. The barcode scanner takes the tally for you and can do a price check, which is another convenience to have sometimes.
Every store I've seen using this tech was from Siemens and I'm pretty happy about the implementation.
Some shops in Japan has another combination of automation.
There is a cashier that scans your items as normal (from one basket into another basket) but each cashier station has two automated pay stations (they can also be shareD).
Once your stuff is scanned the cashier sends you to one of the stations with your basket and you pay ther. You then pack you bags in a dedicated packing area.
It removes the frustration of dealing with scanning yourself. Paying is quick and simple and a separate bagging area (which is std in Japan to be honest) ensures no bottle-necks.
I was under the impression that these automated systems had "reduce personnel" as their primary goal, more than speed.
This would explain why the bad, but still automated, scanning stations still exist.
I've always seen a bagging area just after the scanning station here. I'm not sure it's the same in Japan. But all the people I've seen start to bag while the items are scanned. This results in the cashier waiting for you to pay, blocking people in the line.
With the systems I've discussed in the beginning, you basically bag your items as you go. In the normal case of no-recheck, you pay and leave.
I always use the self checkouts at Home Depot. You just drag every item across the scanner and then pay. If something is too large to scan, the assistant will hand-scan it for you.
At the grocery store, it's a totally different story. Every time I try to use the self-checkouts, I end up regretting it. I think the difference is that the grocery store machine attempts to make sure you don't steal anything by verifying that nothing is put in the bags without a scan, or that the weight of that something agrees with what is scanned. This never works, it always says "unexpected item in bagging area", and then you have to wait for a store person to clear it for you. It ends up taking forever. (Not to mention the vegetables without bar codes that the actual checkers have all the codes memorized for but that you have to search through a long list to find...)
In some European supermarkets, you can borrow a scan gun and scan things as you put them in your bag. Then you use the self checkout machine for payment. Sometimes you get flagged for verification, and an employee has to scan X random items. It's very smooth, especially with card-only terminals.
It's perhaps a problem where you live. I've never had any problems with any of them in Belgium. As misterman101 said, you can either borrow a scanner and then put it back. Or do it all at once at the self-checkout which is almost always faster than waiting in line for a checkout.
I vastly prefer self-checkouts, I hate having to hurry up at the checkout just so the person after me doesn't have to wait for me to put everything in my bag. Let me take it slow, I honestly hate the "normal checkout".
We have them in Singapore, they are amazing, you cannot take a shopping cart to them, only a basket, the older ones were weight based and sometimes didn't work properly, the new ones don't bother with weight and everything scans 100% of the time.
I had an issue getting an item to scan in the self-checkout lane the other day. I've only used the machines a few times before.
Eventually I got it to scan, but I'm pretty sure I would have been able to call over a member of staff to do it manually if not.
In this case I wonder if an attempt at calling staff was made. If not, perhaps the instructions were not clear enough about what to do in that situation.
After 17 minutes with frozen items melting beside me, I'd probably start to panic and behave more irrationally too.
I refuse to use self checkout. Once upon a time these were entry level jobs for ordinary people, checking or bagging groceries or pumping gas. As a society we seem intent on creating a large population of unemployed, hopeless and generally excluded from the economy. This is both cruel and foolish.
This is also what keeps the prices of goods low for low wage earners. Automation is good, to the extend they are cost effective. Humans are good at shifting jobs. No need to do something that can be done by a robot
The problem is the way the labor market works, if you have no special training or credential, and particularly if you are young or otherwise just starting out, you are stuck with an entry job. Once you have a year or more of work experience things get a little better. What happens when we eliminate all the "first jobs"?
Catch-22, i presume. Without eliminating first jobs, there wouldn't be more automation maybe.
I was reading jobs that became part of history recently, like the movie seat showing guy/gal, or elevator guy/gal. I only saw the format, but thinking latter was interesting.
Years from now, a lot of jobs will look "interesting" to next generations. Like the guy that carries construction material around - it'll be robots.
It will all be better eventually, but what will happen in the interim. Maybe that's how social nets form.
How is this not extortion? Every time I read /r/legaladvice and someone says "Hey I have proof someone stole X should I tell them pay me back or return it or I go to the police" and are shouted down that no, threatening to bring in the police is extortion.
Weird how when a large company wants compensation it's not...
It’s not always but when there’s a huge difference in money and power it starts to look dubious. If I sue you for $1000, you may settle because that’s cheaper than getting a lawyer even if you’re innocent; at $100k, you’ll lawyer up and win. If a company is totally inappropriately automatically assumed to be more responsible than a person and given legal advantages, that’s even worse because the cost for the defendant is actually even higher!
You’ll note that this kind of unbalanced system is specifically mentioned early in the article:
> In many states, retailers do not have to return the money they collect if the cases are ultimately dismissed or the people are cleared. A Walmart executive, in a court deposition, acknowledged that the company did not follow up to check on whether people it sought money from had been convicted of shoplifting.
If Walmart has to pay costs every time they lost they’d be a LOT more discriminating about when to charge people.
If SLAPP lawsuits were extortion, they would have already been illegal and anti-SLAPP legislation would not have been necessary. Such legislation is about preventing companies from using lawsuits to suppress free speech.
Note that the page you linked does not mention extortion. Anti-SLAPP provisions protect people from SLAPP by making these suits short, dangerous to the party filing the suit or favorable to the defending party.
I agree if cash isn't involved (like with a cease and desist), but threatening civil suit with the caveat that "we won't if you pay X dollars" sounds like textbook extortion.
The problem here isn't so much scummy companies like Walmart, which will always exist and make false accusations, but the police who take those accusations and without proof make arrests. They are the truly big part of the problem and need to be reigned in. They know that Walmart and other companies routinely make false reports, have no evidence, yet are more than happy to make the arrest based on nothing. Same with judges. And prosecutors who choose to go ahead with these cases. They are truly the ones to blame for our lack of a functioning legal system that tries to lock up innocent people based on some company's bullshit. Let's not pretend that these parties have to enforce these shitty laws the way they do when there are a billion other more important priorities: they choose to because they enjoy hurting people and fucking up people's lives for their own amusement and advancement. If that isn't sick, I don't know what is. Oh right, Walmart falsely accusing people of shoplifting. That's a good reason not to shop there alone. On the other hand, when a retailer refuses to refund money for a product not even delivered, that's just a civil matter and these same scummy cops won't even take a report. The law clearly does not apply the same to all parties.
What’s wrong with America? So crazy out of proportion; an alledged $25 theft may result in police officers arrest you in your home, getting handcuffed, forced into ”prison” jumpsuit etc. On top of that, stores are allowed to put lawyers on hunting cash from people no matter if they’ve been proven guilty or not by the justice system. And they don’t care, nor need to care?
Inverted totalitarianism at work. Paraphrasing a passage from the Bible, of all books, this one is a good parable of human nature: From those whom have nothing, all will be taken; to those that have all, more will be given.
People whom can’t fight back will be abused if there are incentives of the elite and their functionaries to extract money from these poor... like a legitimized protection racket by a proverbial Sheriff of Nottingham.
Start boycotting and blacklisting these business.
They only understand profits. You have thousands of alternatives to walmart(online shops, delivery, other retail chain). By not having one predatory megacorp controlling the market, there will be more competition and options to consumers.
You should look at this from a legal perspective. Now I understand the "real" situation, and that everybody should just magically know it, and the world should be just and true and ...
Fact is ... it isn't. You don't know if people are playing fair or not, and that means
1) at some point you make a guess if they are ... or not. There are going to be false positives and false negatives.
2) there will be disputes about this
So we need a justice system.
Ok, now let's see how people react once they get into the situation where there's an actual dispute about whether they stole or not. That dispute can happen regardless of whether you stole or not, and either side may be fraudulent, uncooperative, overworked or absent, just to name some basic problems.
a) they never have any real legal knowledge, so they are not capable of playing by the rules of the justice system, even if they want to. Nobody does even an introductory course (even though, you're actually sort of legally required to know all laws)
b) they don't have a lawyer, and they refuse to pay for this. So they don't know the law, nor are they willing to pay for having someone explain the law to them and give them advice about their options.
c) they also don't want to pay taxes to have an extensive police force. So elected officials (presumably with your approval) have instituted "pay per conviction" rules, to measure police force effectiveness.
So what situation is a cop and, later, the assistant prosecutor in ? They have someone who doesn't know the law, won't get someone who knows the law to talk to you, and your boss is shouting at you that you can't explain their options to them you don't have the time, and, oh by the way, if you don't get them convicted it's 50$ less money at the end of the month.
At least that video will give you some idea of exactly how a police officer will work, how a defense attorney will react in a very general sense, what the prosecution will do and exactly how people get fucked by the system.
Oh and I forgot the last, sad and stupid, little fact about the legal system
d) it is in the majority of cases impossible for a convicted criminal to actually uphold the judgement (say, paying for a stolen and damaged item). They just don't have the money, nor do they have the inclination to work to repay their debts. That's why the vast majority of criminals are criminals. So the only option is to punish them, no other option is available.
d bis) this means that in the vast majority of cases, reporting a crime to the police gets you ... nothing. If you have a theft, you will only very, very rarely get your goods back even if they find and convict the perpetrator rapidly (which itself is not exactly the norm either). It is actually more common for people to get in legal trouble for reporting a crime than it is for people to get satisfaction.
The TLDR: you CANNOT COUNT ON THE POLICE FOR ANYTHING. Unless it's a violent, personal crime, don't report a crime. You will not get stolen goods back, and it is reported that something like 20-30% of convicted criminals are innocent (at least of what they were convicted for), so what are you trying to achieve ? Get the necessary paper for the insurance if you must, but that's all. Don't attempt to give a description of a perpetrator that you only saw in a moment of pure panic and anger, because it's going to be inaccurate as hell. For the love of God, do NOT report your suspicions (everyone's neighbor was looking funnily in their window the day before the house got robbed, didn't you know ? Especially the neighbors they don't like). And I get that 5 people in your class look at you like they'd like to hurt you, if you then got robbed by a big guy, it wasn't one of them. It especially wasn't the one you like least, and you don't want to ever have any police attention focused on you or anyone you know, even if you don't like them.
I feel that part of being a humane society is that we have to accept that there's going to be a certain number of people that take advantage. It will cost the rest of us a bit more.
But I'd rather put up with some cheaters, be they shop lifters, fruadulent insurance claimers, border crossers, etc, than allow draconian policies like those outlined in this story.
Further, compared to white collar crime and all the other ways the rich and powerful are able to "cheat", surely shoplifting is a rounding error.
That there are going to be shop lifters, is accepted in the industry. It is called shrinkage. Every year or every 6 weeks, retailers hire inventory audit companies to calculate shrinkage.
Some consulting company like McKinsey might have advised big retailers on how to reduce/recoup the shrinkage. These cease and desist letters, vague laws, etc are product of that effort.
Plus there's a fair compromise here: If they get convicted then have them pay restitution. Isn't that what restitution is specifically designed for anyway?
>In some states, companies have been able to collect more than the value of the allegedly stolen items, up to $1,000 in some instances.
Seems to set up a perverse set of incentives - might be more profitable to pursue people who steal low ticket items than it is to actually sell them...
Not that I completely agree with the extent of the punishment, but if you only ever charge the person the amount you would have made from the sale, and don’t provide any other punishment (eg fine on top, conviction, community service etc) then there is little to no incentive for anyone to pay for them.
>Not that I completely agree with the extent of the punishment, but if you only ever charge the person the amount you would have made from the sale, and don’t provide any other punishment (eg fine on top, conviction, community service etc) then there is little to no incentive for anyone to pay for them.
I totally see where you're coming from, but IMHO fines are paid to governments. Restitution is paid to corporations. Subtle but important difference. It's extremely common in small claims for defendants to be "made whole" (paid for actual, measurable losses). But you're basically asking for emotional damages for theft... if someone stole my laptop all I could sue for is the replacement cost of the laptop and any associated costs (ex: broken car window).
If you want to fine shoplifters, great. Maybe use that money towards various social programs - a lot of shoplifters are IV drug users for example.
But don't just hand the fine money to a corporation that will continue to underpay it's employees to the point their salaries are subsidized by taxpayer money (food stamps).
it would make a lot more sense to have a set charge on top of the amount: $40-50 charge for a $20 item. Otherwise, it is just making sure that those stealing even though they have the means to pay can avoid criminal charges and further hassle, but someone stealing a few groceries due to lack of money cannot.
Like the other poster said, wanting to avoid criminal charges is enough deterrent for most folks. A shoplifting charge can really mess up your life for many years, and that is without actually going to jail.
Landlords will arbitrarily deduct charges from the deposit, low enough not to bother with hopeless legal litigation (~1000 EUR), the difference is that landlord already have your deposit money. The American-style copyright infringement shakedown is present in Germany also with a whole alternative shakedown-protection industry.
>>> the difference is that landlord already have your deposit money.
It depends on the country. For instance, the UK requires the deposit to be put in a registered deposit scheme. The landlord cannot abuse a penny out of it. It's really good.
Cannot the court charge wallmart for not showing up to the trial?
They are clearly abusing the justice system. Scaring people into paying, but never showing up to the trial and letting the court dismiss the case.
Showing up would cost them money. It might even lead them to lose the case or award damages, given how little evidence they may have sometimes. The whole procedure is well orchestrated.
Seems awfully one-sided. Perhaps there should be automatic reparation in the case of mistaken prosecution, at a level that is at least somewhat punitive. The retailer should feel some incentive to get it right.
How about 1% of that year's revenue. Problem fixed. There should never be a false accusation by a merchant. This allows up to 100 of these atrocities before the business goes out of business which is what should happen to corporations that do this. It's amazing how simple solutions are extremely effective.
Shockingly, the article says nothing about whether the police or a judge actually investigated or reviewed any purported evidence prior to the issuance of the subject arrest warrants.
I've probably shopped at Walmart less than 10 times in my life. It's probably because they aren't conveniently located for me. But also they have so much bad press that I just don't want to be associated with it. At the same time, I also have the feeling that this will never happen to me so I'm indifferent.
That indifference is a bug in our society. It allows this injustice to be farmed out to 3rd party law shops using a system designed by corporate lobbying dollars to harass powerless individuals. Walmart isn't indifferent and they are mildly evil so the world is made worse by their presence.
How is this not defamation of character as well as illegal imprisonment for /mistakenly/ claiming someone is guilty of a crime to the point that they become INCARCERATED?
Why don’t people use their power as consumers and stop shopping there? I have never understood why people let large companies walk all over them. Get organised and get even!
Because of home economics and lack of affordable choices - sometimes lack of choices at all. Folks that have some money do make those choices.
If Wal-mart is the cheapest retailer around you and you make $15-$20,000 a year, they are basically your only option for everyday household goods. Even if you are saving $20 per month, that's $20. Or perhaps you get more food that way.
Where I was at in the states, it was the cheapest place. We did have Aldi in some areas, but one couldn't buy everything there and the opening hours weren't great. Some areas didn't have this option either. (You can survive on food at aldi, but aren't going to find underwear and bras there either. Not to mention the lack of name-brand soaps if you had sensitive skin).
>...Christian Schreiber, a lawyer who filed a lawsuit in California state court against Home Depot over the practice. The suit resulted in a settlement for about 3,500 people...
That’s how it’s supposed to work. More of that should cause companies to take notice.
Not really; barratry is more a DoS on the system of justice (it wastes court time), however certainly some barrators could focus exclusively on one private party. Making false complaints to the police is not barratry. Maryland, which is the one of the States explicitly mentioned in the article, has a specific and atypical statutory definition[1].
It is hard to be a barrator in modern systems of justice based on English common law. Defendants of repeated claims by a single claimant can get relief from the courts, even if the claims aren't strictly frivolous.
In common law a barrator is someone who repeatedly brings frivolous actions to court, knowing they are frivolous. There are statutory definitions of barratry as a criminal offence, mainly in several of the States of the U.S.A. The usual requirements for criminal liability apply, and there is usually a threshold value for the number of unlawfully-brought actions, so there is ample opportunity for courts to impose a graduated response.
In most common law jurisdictions, it is essentially impossible to bring a frivolous lawsuit as licensed persons (lawyers of various types, paralegals) will generally not risk professional liability, and court clerks generally have the power to reject proceedings initiated by unlicensed persons if they are manifestly frivolous. In other jurisdictions, lists of ineligible litigants are maintained[2] and updated from time to time by the overall system of justice.
Additionally, most courts usually exercise their power to make a costs order against someone who still somehow manages to progress frivolous litigation, usually on an indemnity basis, which can be sufficiently expensive when the other party or parties has had to hire legal representation that it is strongly dissuasive. Most potential barrators could not afford to reach the threshold of criminal liability, because liability for the costs of the court and defence (and collecting those costs) exceeds their ability to pay.
However, access to relief from the courts is important, so there is generally a mechanism to allow such people to bring cases which have some significant probability of succeeding to court nevertheless.
Unfortunately, civil lawsuits are usually settled out of court, so courts may not see abusive patterns (courts are generally shy to inquire into consensual agreements between adversarial parties) until a defendant refuses favourable on-the-steps-of-the-court settlement offers instead opting to reach a final judgment and a trial on the matter of costs. It's then that a vexatious litigant that casts its net widely (i.e., filing many dubious different courts because it can, thanks to corporate scale or whatever) is most likely to be "discovered" by a court for the first time.
Harassing behaviour by creditors or their collections agents is a different matter, and threatening to bring obviously frivolous proceedings does not typically incur criminal liability -- it's only the act of bringing such proceedings, knowingly and repeatedly, that will reach the threshold of barratry (where that still exists as a specific offence) or its rough equivalents. Most "private prosecutions" are those brought by a public body with the explicit statutory power to do so, where the body is something other than the usual prosecutor.
Finally, it is exceptionally rare that barratry or vexatious litigation could escape the domain of private law. Criminal prosecutions are generally brought by a public authority, and it is exceptionally rare (even in systems where it is even possible) for a private person to bring a criminal prosecution. It usually requires permission from the court or a public authority. (Even in the pre-modern system -- here roughly when professional public prosecutors were granted absolute discretion over bringing any criminal prosecution -- which depending on jurisdiction ranges from the 17th to 20th century, a private prosecutor would still have to seek an indictment, and malicious, frivolous, or vexatious prosecutions would almost inevitably fail to do so). Threatening to report innocent behaviour to police, while harassing and not in the public interest, is not the same as actually engaging in malicious prosecution.
But experiencing them on perhaps a monthly basis these days, I’ve developed an overwhelming urge to avoid them at all costs. And not because of incidents as described by this article.
It’s reached the point that even when I’m holding a single item, and there are five people with full shoppings carts in front of me, I get annoyed at people who suggest self checkout to me. I know damn well that there’s a self checkout lane, and it’s my time to waste. I’m waiting in precisely the lane I intend to be in.
Even though I totally agree that working a cash register should very nearly be an anachronistic job at this point, self checkout lanes are a horrid abomination in their modern form. Waiting for these machines to prompt me through the task of ringing my own items up is so far from my own experiences of actually working as a cashier, that I shake my head in dismay nearly every time.
When I used to work register at no less than ten other jobs, I could rip through a collection of 20 or 30 items in a minute or less (as long as barcodes or price tags were legible), and accept payment as fast as you could hand it to me. But self checkout prompts. Stops. Waits. Prompts. Stops. Fails. Back to square one. Prompt. Wait... Wait... Prompt. And so on.
Why is it so bad? Why is it worse than vending machines? So much worse. And restaraunts are trying to pull the same trick. Self service touchscreens leave you sitting at tables, unserved for half an hour, until you walk over to the bar and complain.
The future is hell.
I can't imagine how you can fail so spectacularly at your job as to design the self-checkout experience, so I'm forced to believe that all those issues are there on purpose.
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17682494 -> https://brandur.org/interfaces
Although scanning each item individually is still time consuming. Removing that requirement would be awesome.
The mechanism in as shown in the article (bring all the bags to the check-out lane, scan, weight, pay) is just horrid, and way slower. I just go to the regular checkout in these cases. I've seen a store which replaced all regular queues with self-checkout lanes, and now I just avoid it.
The second method is by taking a barcode gun with you at the entrance, scan the items as you go, and simply pay at the exit. There are random-rechecks, but they are performed by the cashier, so they're quick. On average, it's actually faster, and I do prefer this method. The barcode scanner takes the tally for you and can do a price check, which is another convenience to have sometimes.
Every store I've seen using this tech was from Siemens and I'm pretty happy about the implementation.
There is a cashier that scans your items as normal (from one basket into another basket) but each cashier station has two automated pay stations (they can also be shareD).
Once your stuff is scanned the cashier sends you to one of the stations with your basket and you pay ther. You then pack you bags in a dedicated packing area.
It removes the frustration of dealing with scanning yourself. Paying is quick and simple and a separate bagging area (which is std in Japan to be honest) ensures no bottle-necks.
I gotta say I like this system a lot
This would explain why the bad, but still automated, scanning stations still exist.
I've always seen a bagging area just after the scanning station here. I'm not sure it's the same in Japan. But all the people I've seen start to bag while the items are scanned. This results in the cashier waiting for you to pay, blocking people in the line.
With the systems I've discussed in the beginning, you basically bag your items as you go. In the normal case of no-recheck, you pay and leave.
At the grocery store, it's a totally different story. Every time I try to use the self-checkouts, I end up regretting it. I think the difference is that the grocery store machine attempts to make sure you don't steal anything by verifying that nothing is put in the bags without a scan, or that the weight of that something agrees with what is scanned. This never works, it always says "unexpected item in bagging area", and then you have to wait for a store person to clear it for you. It ends up taking forever. (Not to mention the vegetables without bar codes that the actual checkers have all the codes memorized for but that you have to search through a long list to find...)
I vastly prefer self-checkouts, I hate having to hurry up at the checkout just so the person after me doesn't have to wait for me to put everything in my bag. Let me take it slow, I honestly hate the "normal checkout".
I avoid supermarkets that don't have them!
Eventually I got it to scan, but I'm pretty sure I would have been able to call over a member of staff to do it manually if not.
In this case I wonder if an attempt at calling staff was made. If not, perhaps the instructions were not clear enough about what to do in that situation.
After 17 minutes with frozen items melting beside me, I'd probably start to panic and behave more irrationally too.
I was reading jobs that became part of history recently, like the movie seat showing guy/gal, or elevator guy/gal. I only saw the format, but thinking latter was interesting.
Years from now, a lot of jobs will look "interesting" to next generations. Like the guy that carries construction material around - it'll be robots.
It will all be better eventually, but what will happen in the interim. Maybe that's how social nets form.
Weird how when a large company wants compensation it's not...
You’ll note that this kind of unbalanced system is specifically mentioned early in the article:
> In many states, retailers do not have to return the money they collect if the cases are ultimately dismissed or the people are cleared. A Walmart executive, in a court deposition, acknowledged that the company did not follow up to check on whether people it sought money from had been convicted of shoplifting.
If Walmart has to pay costs every time they lost they’d be a LOT more discriminating about when to charge people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
Where’s the sanity and human decency??
People whom can’t fight back will be abused if there are incentives of the elite and their functionaries to extract money from these poor... like a legitimized protection racket by a proverbial Sheriff of Nottingham.
Fact is ... it isn't. You don't know if people are playing fair or not, and that means
1) at some point you make a guess if they are ... or not. There are going to be false positives and false negatives.
2) there will be disputes about this
So we need a justice system.
Ok, now let's see how people react once they get into the situation where there's an actual dispute about whether they stole or not. That dispute can happen regardless of whether you stole or not, and either side may be fraudulent, uncooperative, overworked or absent, just to name some basic problems.
a) they never have any real legal knowledge, so they are not capable of playing by the rules of the justice system, even if they want to. Nobody does even an introductory course (even though, you're actually sort of legally required to know all laws)
b) they don't have a lawyer, and they refuse to pay for this. So they don't know the law, nor are they willing to pay for having someone explain the law to them and give them advice about their options.
c) they also don't want to pay taxes to have an extensive police force. So elected officials (presumably with your approval) have instituted "pay per conviction" rules, to measure police force effectiveness.
So what situation is a cop and, later, the assistant prosecutor in ? They have someone who doesn't know the law, won't get someone who knows the law to talk to you, and your boss is shouting at you that you can't explain their options to them you don't have the time, and, oh by the way, if you don't get them convicted it's 50$ less money at the end of the month.
Are you starting to see how this works ?
Now, get a little taste of the US legal system from a criminal justice perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
At least that video will give you some idea of exactly how a police officer will work, how a defense attorney will react in a very general sense, what the prosecution will do and exactly how people get fucked by the system.
Oh and I forgot the last, sad and stupid, little fact about the legal system
d) it is in the majority of cases impossible for a convicted criminal to actually uphold the judgement (say, paying for a stolen and damaged item). They just don't have the money, nor do they have the inclination to work to repay their debts. That's why the vast majority of criminals are criminals. So the only option is to punish them, no other option is available.
d bis) this means that in the vast majority of cases, reporting a crime to the police gets you ... nothing. If you have a theft, you will only very, very rarely get your goods back even if they find and convict the perpetrator rapidly (which itself is not exactly the norm either). It is actually more common for people to get in legal trouble for reporting a crime than it is for people to get satisfaction.
The TLDR: you CANNOT COUNT ON THE POLICE FOR ANYTHING. Unless it's a violent, personal crime, don't report a crime. You will not get stolen goods back, and it is reported that something like 20-30% of convicted criminals are innocent (at least of what they were convicted for), so what are you trying to achieve ? Get the necessary paper for the insurance if you must, but that's all. Don't attempt to give a description of a perpetrator that you only saw in a moment of pure panic and anger, because it's going to be inaccurate as hell. For the love of God, do NOT report your suspicions (everyone's neighbor was looking funnily in their window the day before the house got robbed, didn't you know ? Especially the neighbors they don't like). And I get that 5 people in your class look at you like they'd like to hurt you, if you then got robbed by a big guy, it wasn't one of them. It especially wasn't the one you like least, and you don't want to ever have any police attention focused on you or anyone you know, even if you don't like them.
But I'd rather put up with some cheaters, be they shop lifters, fruadulent insurance claimers, border crossers, etc, than allow draconian policies like those outlined in this story.
Further, compared to white collar crime and all the other ways the rich and powerful are able to "cheat", surely shoplifting is a rounding error.
$0.02 thoughts for a Friday evening.
Some consulting company like McKinsey might have advised big retailers on how to reduce/recoup the shrinkage. These cease and desist letters, vague laws, etc are product of that effort.
I wonder how many other threat letter business models there are.
Seems to set up a perverse set of incentives - might be more profitable to pursue people who steal low ticket items than it is to actually sell them...
I totally see where you're coming from, but IMHO fines are paid to governments. Restitution is paid to corporations. Subtle but important difference. It's extremely common in small claims for defendants to be "made whole" (paid for actual, measurable losses). But you're basically asking for emotional damages for theft... if someone stole my laptop all I could sue for is the replacement cost of the laptop and any associated costs (ex: broken car window).
If you want to fine shoplifters, great. Maybe use that money towards various social programs - a lot of shoplifters are IV drug users for example.
But don't just hand the fine money to a corporation that will continue to underpay it's employees to the point their salaries are subsidized by taxpayer money (food stamps).
Like the other poster said, wanting to avoid criminal charges is enough deterrent for most folks. A shoplifting charge can really mess up your life for many years, and that is without actually going to jail.
It depends on the country. For instance, the UK requires the deposit to be put in a registered deposit scheme. The landlord cannot abuse a penny out of it. It's really good.
They are clearly abusing the justice system. Scaring people into paying, but never showing up to the trial and letting the court dismiss the case.
Showing up would cost them money. It might even lead them to lose the case or award damages, given how little evidence they may have sometimes. The whole procedure is well orchestrated.
I can't believe that scam tactics like this will bring in much money either. Not compared to the cost of fixing the out publicity issues.
That indifference is a bug in our society. It allows this injustice to be farmed out to 3rd party law shops using a system designed by corporate lobbying dollars to harass powerless individuals. Walmart isn't indifferent and they are mildly evil so the world is made worse by their presence.
If Wal-mart is the cheapest retailer around you and you make $15-$20,000 a year, they are basically your only option for everyday household goods. Even if you are saving $20 per month, that's $20. Or perhaps you get more food that way.
Where I was at in the states, it was the cheapest place. We did have Aldi in some areas, but one couldn't buy everything there and the opening hours weren't great. Some areas didn't have this option either. (You can survive on food at aldi, but aren't going to find underwear and bras there either. Not to mention the lack of name-brand soaps if you had sensitive skin).
That’s how it’s supposed to work. More of that should cause companies to take notice.
It is hard to be a barrator in modern systems of justice based on English common law. Defendants of repeated claims by a single claimant can get relief from the courts, even if the claims aren't strictly frivolous.
In common law a barrator is someone who repeatedly brings frivolous actions to court, knowing they are frivolous. There are statutory definitions of barratry as a criminal offence, mainly in several of the States of the U.S.A. The usual requirements for criminal liability apply, and there is usually a threshold value for the number of unlawfully-brought actions, so there is ample opportunity for courts to impose a graduated response.
In most common law jurisdictions, it is essentially impossible to bring a frivolous lawsuit as licensed persons (lawyers of various types, paralegals) will generally not risk professional liability, and court clerks generally have the power to reject proceedings initiated by unlicensed persons if they are manifestly frivolous. In other jurisdictions, lists of ineligible litigants are maintained[2] and updated from time to time by the overall system of justice.
Additionally, most courts usually exercise their power to make a costs order against someone who still somehow manages to progress frivolous litigation, usually on an indemnity basis, which can be sufficiently expensive when the other party or parties has had to hire legal representation that it is strongly dissuasive. Most potential barrators could not afford to reach the threshold of criminal liability, because liability for the costs of the court and defence (and collecting those costs) exceeds their ability to pay.
However, access to relief from the courts is important, so there is generally a mechanism to allow such people to bring cases which have some significant probability of succeeding to court nevertheless.
Unfortunately, civil lawsuits are usually settled out of court, so courts may not see abusive patterns (courts are generally shy to inquire into consensual agreements between adversarial parties) until a defendant refuses favourable on-the-steps-of-the-court settlement offers instead opting to reach a final judgment and a trial on the matter of costs. It's then that a vexatious litigant that casts its net widely (i.e., filing many dubious different courts because it can, thanks to corporate scale or whatever) is most likely to be "discovered" by a court for the first time.
Harassing behaviour by creditors or their collections agents is a different matter, and threatening to bring obviously frivolous proceedings does not typically incur criminal liability -- it's only the act of bringing such proceedings, knowingly and repeatedly, that will reach the threshold of barratry (where that still exists as a specific offence) or its rough equivalents. Most "private prosecutions" are those brought by a public body with the explicit statutory power to do so, where the body is something other than the usual prosecutor.
Finally, it is exceptionally rare that barratry or vexatious litigation could escape the domain of private law. Criminal prosecutions are generally brought by a public authority, and it is exceptionally rare (even in systems where it is even possible) for a private person to bring a criminal prosecution. It usually requires permission from the court or a public authority. (Even in the pre-modern system -- here roughly when professional public prosecutors were granted absolute discretion over bringing any criminal prosecution -- which depending on jurisdiction ranges from the 17th to 20th century, a private prosecutor would still have to seek an indictment, and malicious, frivolous, or vexatious prosecutions would almost inevitably fail to do so). Threatening to report innocent behaviour to police, while harassing and not in the public interest, is not the same as actually engaging in malicious prosecution.
- --
[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/business-occupati...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants -- all of these judgments are generally easy enough to find online; an example is https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/vex_li... -- not all of them would have been barrators under the common law (before statute superseded barratry and many other common-law offences in England and Wales).