Maybe Wal-Mart is prosecuting way too many shoplifters these days -- weighing down costs in court or something. In a rather bizarre move by the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart has decided to stop prosecuting shoplifters who steal items valued at less than $25 from its shelves. Maybe it'll just slap folks who steal a pack of gum on the wrist and send them on their way or something.The new Wal-Mart policy calls for prosecuting anyone between the ages of 18 and 64 who shoplifts more than $25 -- where the threshold before had been $3. Reading from this source article, it looks like a cost-cutting policy change to me -- and it makes sense. Is the cost to prosecute someone who takes a $15 pair of shorts more than the shorts are worth? Of course it is -- probably by a factor of 10. Of course, this policy change includes that after a second incident of a less-than-$25 shoplifting charge, that prosecution will be reinstated. Otherwise, they'd see a rash of $10 shoplifting charges for groceries and the like most likely.
With many police officers actually stationed at Wal-Mart -- at taxpayer expense -- I'm sure many police departments across the country are breathing a sigh of relief here. The flood of petty arrests at Wal-Mart for just a few dollars worth of goods may finally be over, and extra uniforms can be deployed to more important things, like solving crimes and arresting drunk drivers. With Wal-Mart always seeking ways to reduce costs, this is a good move on its part.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-13-2006 @ 3:15PM
Jack F. Doyle said...
Wal Mart needs a heart, not a seamstress to repair the hole in their pocket
Imagine the benefit to the USA if they gave all employees medical benefits and a pension, allowing their cost to rise accordingly And they started buying from American manufacturers instead of the chinese,.
And they employed only people with legitimate social security numbers corroborated in the FICA system.
Oh, sorry that would cost the stockholders a few nickels and that means they would have a heart stoppage.
7-14-2006 @ 5:33PM
Jeremy said...
My comment is in regard to the last paragraph. The statement, "With many police officers actually stationed at Wal-Mart -- at taxpayer expense" is misleading. If an officer is literally stationed at a Wal-Mart, he or she is "off duty" and being paid by Wal-Mart (through a contract with the Police Department). I think what is an accurate statement is that with fewer "on duty" calls to Wal-Mart, officers will have more time. I will go out on a limb and say that most Police Departments have the ability to re-prioritize a call should something more serious happen while attending to a shoplifting incident.
7-14-2006 @ 8:04PM
LINDA OSBORNE said...
i work at walmart,,and i must say that while police officers are needed for all domestic calls,,i personally will miss the officers at the doors at my walmart store1242,,i work 3rd shift and our store is right next to the interstate,,so you can imagine the potental for robbery and assults,, its all about saving the all mighty dollar for most companies,,walmart is no exception,,according to a letter from corperate,, police officers are not a necessity,or need at walmart!!!,, they dont fit into the budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,, im sick of hearing walmart whine about thier losses in money,,treat your employees right and the employees will treat the coustomers right!!!