| User | Comment |
|---|
LindaH    |
I don't know. It could be, but that doesn't make it right. |
Frostbrand  |
For him at least, yes. |
| bill |
It's worth a shot... it's not like we have some other effective form of punishment. |
LJD  |
Yes |
| romkey |
I don't know. It might be. I'm sure there are some people who wouldn't care.
|
| Amanda | | posted 8-May-2007 10:38pm |
I don't know. But, I find it amusing. |
| filiasan | | posted 8-May-2007 10:48pm |
It won't help anything. People who steal will keep stealing. Making them do such humiliating things will only enrage and further their desire to steal again. And besides, everyone knows that Walmart is an evil syndicate.
And Frostband, I don't know if that's a guy. Might just be an ugly woman. Well, male or female...still ugly. |
| falkensmaze | | posted 8-May-2007 11:04pm |
Maybe with some people, but if it's a person who likes to steal and doesn't think it's wrong, probably not. |
| falkensmaze | | (reply to filiasan) posted 8-May-2007 11:05pm |
In the article, the caption on her picture says her name is Lisa. |
| Pomeranian | | posted 8-May-2007 11:26pm |
Quite frankly it makes me want to steal. |
| RGirl | | posted 9-May-2007 12:01am |
I think it is more effective than a punishment that allows some one to pay in secret and not pay the debt to the public as they should. Kids will see these people and will probably think twice about stealing. |
cloudhugger   | | posted 9-May-2007 12:01am |
No, it's not effective, nor do I think it's a deterent. Everyone will be watching that poor butt-hole so real criminals won't be seen stealing. It might even make it more of a challange. It's a joke, so you get caught and you have to wear a sign, big deal. do they allow us to throw rotten tomatoes at the guy? I think it's a cruel joke. |
| RGirl | | (reply to filiasan) posted 9-May-2007 12:03am |
Walmart didn't punish them, a judge did. Did you read the article? |
| Iseult | | posted 9-May-2007 12:16am |
I don't like the idea of public ridicule/humiliation as an ideal way to punish someone. I don't know why.
And there is nothing wrong with stealing from Walmart. They steal form us everyday, those lousy capitalists. |
| Zang | | posted 9-May-2007 12:19am |
I don't know. I think you would need to do a study. Let's say 200 people are convicted of shoplifting and 100 are subjected to the above punishment and the other 100 get the 60 day jail sentence. Then give it ten years and see what the recidivism rate is for each group.  |
| jettles |
i'm sure it can be in some cases....... |
| paulyw | | posted 9-May-2007 10:16am |
YES!! This would teach them a lesson NOT to shoplift!! I also would like to see kids wear these as well. |
| Enheduanna |
I don't know. I haven't seen any statistics on whether this kind of punishment work as a deterrent. I think it seems kind of stupid, personally, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 9-May-2007 4:34pm |
Why would stealing from a store make someone indebted to the public? |
| LindaH |
"One of the shoplifters, Lisa King Fithian, 46, wore the sign from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. to avoid a 60-day jail sentence. Another convicted shoplifter was at the store from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Fithian maintained her innocence. She said her conviction was based on a misunderstanding: She said she was taking a $7 item to the service desk because it would not scan."
I don't know exactly how they concluded she was trying to steal. I really hope she's not innocent, if she was put through all that.
But in any case, she is 46 years old! That is way too old to be given a patronizing punishment like that. I can understand shaming/guilting kids into doing the right thing, but adults? Even if she was trying to steal, I don't think her punishment should involve a loss of dignity.  |
| ultamate |
Apparently it was a easier way out for her than serving a sentence since she made the chose to do it. It might work for some where others it may not. |
gambler   |
mmm effective? I am not sure, I thinks its a good idea though, they dont have to wear it they can take the 60 day jail time |
| Enigma | | posted 9-May-2007 11:30pm |
Sure, now if only parents would get their kids to be responsible for what they do instead of making excuses for their behaviour.... they wouldn't end up doing this when they were older. |
| Enigma | | posted 9-May-2007 11:34pm |
I'll add this... it may not be politically correct but I would have loved to see the guy who burnt my store to the ground walking around out front with a big ass sign that said "I'm the butt-hole that burnt this business down to support my crack habit and yes, I am a true pyromaniac so guard your homes against me."
|
| ZYX | | posted 10-May-2007 12:26am |
It may not be effective, but its sure as hell funny. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 1:10am |
Because you didn't work for what you took. The prices go up to make up for shoplifters in stores so the honest people have to pay more for something you stole and got for free. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 1:14am |
Hell yes it should. Adults have more to be ashamed of than kids anyday. We don't have the benefit of being too young to know better. We know better. And of course she will claim innocence. You don't get arrested for shoplifting by walking to the service desk with an item. It takes more than that. You are only hearing her story. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 10-May-2007 1:27am |
Usually, they have people pay back double the cost of the item stolen, plus compensation to the store and fines for petty theft. Monetary compensation is the most appropriate consequence for property crimes. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 1:28am |
I disagree. I think of stealing from a store a social crime. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 10-May-2007 1:32am |
Okay. Her story isn't really all that believable anyway.
NO punishment should involve a loss of dignity. In fact, consequences for adult crimes should not even be classed as "punishment" at all. We have no business trying to mold and shape grown adults to our will. I believe in consequences. There should be natural consequences that appropriately fit the crime in the most relevant way. Shaming adults serves no purpose except to amuse people. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 10-May-2007 1:32am |
I don't believe there is such a thing as a social crime. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 10:32am |
Yes we do have business trying to mold and shape adults. We have laws that must be followed. It is why we call what we have a civilization. When some one's behavior is so far uncivilized they break a serious law they need to be punished. There must be consequences. Because shoplifting affects society as a whole the punishment should be appropriate. An adult shoplifting should already feel ashamed of themselves & if they don't then we need to make sure they do. I think this punishment is very appropriate. I don't find crime amusing in the least. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 10:33am |
I do so oh well. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 10:37am |
You don't think shoplifting affects society as a whole? Regardless of what a person pays back what will deter them from doing it again? How much do they steal before they get caught? Many shoplifters are seasoned thieves and what they pay back for one offense won't cover all previous crimes. And regardless of what they are made to pay back for one offense the stores still raise prices to cover the thieving of others. And if they aren't seasoned thieves yet not getting caught and punished will play a part in the continuation of the behavior. Not getting punished is a reward that encourages further stealing.
If you don't believe there are any crimes that affect society as a whole do you believe there are crimes against humanity? |
| Caiterrbearr | | posted 10-May-2007 11:18am |
No, that is public humiliation!! That's wrong. Completely wrong. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 10-May-2007 11:59am |
Kids are to be molded and shaped. Adults are what they are. If someone is unfit to live amongst us, deemed a threat, they belong in jail where they can no longer be a threat. Not to punish them, mold or shape them, but to save us from their threatening dangerous ways. To protect us from them. Thieves should be made to pay fines and restitution. Consequences should only serve to rectify the crime not to change the criminal. They aren't kids anymore. They can change themselves if they want to live in society and be honest. They shouldn't be made to feel ashamed, they should be made to realize it's cheaper to pay for something than pay for stealing it. |
| cerealkiller | | posted 10-May-2007 12:00pm |
No. Didn't work in the early days with public humiliation either. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 10-May-2007 12:07pm |
A seasoned thief who is made to wear a sign is probably just as likely to go back to stealing as one who pays huge fines.
Humanity, yeah. War crimes and such. Large groups of people committing crimes against other large groups of people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanit...
That's totally different. |
| southernyankee | | posted 10-May-2007 12:25pm |
effective, yes, is it morally right, I don't know.
I think if these people were given the option of a 60 day jail term verses this and they picked this, then obviously the 60 day sentence would be worse that this, at least for these two people. This seems like a cheap publicity stunt to deter OTHER people moreso than the original thief. I wouldn't feel right if the punishment wasn't an option, unless the person did something really bad.
btw- don't they normally ban you when they bust you stealing (not that it actually gets enforced)? So technically, the judge is ordering them to break the law by making them commit trespassing. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 3:32pm |
Oh, well, I totally disagree. Nothing more to say. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 10-May-2007 3:45pm |
But to me a crime against humanity is a social crime and you said you don't believe in social crimes. They prosecute single people for crimes against a body of people. When you steal from a store you are committing a crime against the people you stole from and the costumers that have to pay more for your illegal actions. It isn't just between you and the store owner. How about sexual abuse against children? They have to sign a list with their information and follow all kinds of rules because their crime was a crime against the people.
From the wikipedia article- note the word 'individual'.
"On the other hand, an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offences mentioned above, or engages in one such offence against only a few civilians, provided those offences are part of a consistent pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason."
|
| RGirl |
I imagine they talked with Walmart beforehand. |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 10-May-2007 3:56pm |
Yeah, individuals can be made responsible for war crimes and those types of things. He's part of the group that was doing those things. Those are prosecuted differently than people who act completely alone.
I think stealing has a residual effect on society, but a criminal owes society nothing, only the store, and possibly compensation for the police, security, paperwork involved.
People who commit sex offenses against kids should be in jail, where they have no opportunity to harm anyone. I don't think there should be a registry. If someone is still dangerous, they belong behind bars.
|
| docgbrown | | posted 10-May-2007 7:06pm |
Cool |
| Cain | | posted 11-May-2007 7:20am |
I don't know. If I saw that, I'd probably think it was some sort of bizarre advertising campaign. |
| kitkat | | posted 11-May-2007 2:50pm |
No, in fact I just read yesterday that Wal-Mart has decided not to allow these people to come back after the first day. |
| Biggles | | posted 12-May-2007 5:25pm |
Humiliation? It might work for some people, but not for others...
Either way, I find it pretty distasteful. |
| kitti723 | | posted 17-May-2007 12:45am |
I think this is horrible humiliation. I think Walmart should be stolen from. They steal from all of their employee's by other means & they don't walk around outside wearing signs says "we underpay our employees & on average a male Walmart employee will make more than a female Walmart employee." If he chose this punishment instead of fines or other means then I can't defend him. |
| krazykatlady | | posted 17-May-2007 3:38pm |
Public humiliation isn't going to stop habitual thieves from stealing. |
| EyesOfCharisma | | posted 18-May-2007 4:29pm |
Sure, If I had to wear that board, I would NEVERRRRRRR do it again |
| qdawg_07 | | posted 29-Jul-2007 5:34am |
only on some people on others they do it agian except they correct there thier mistakes |
