LogFAQs > #980650927

hungrymike posted...

Not prosecuting smaller crimes leads to the commission of more serious crimes.

This sounds like the sort of claim that's empirically verifiable enough that people feel comfortable saying it, but they feel so comfortable that they never bother to actually substantiate it. It's very similar to "weed is a gateway drug" in that regard. With that in mind, are you able to substantiate the claim that failing to adequately prosecute shoplifting increases the risk of shoplifters graduating to more serious crimes on an appreciable scale? Or are you just regurgitating the claim as a matter of feel-good dogma?

hungrymike posted...

While the cost of each individual shoplifter may not be much, collectively it leads to higher prices, lost tax revenue, store closures and businesses shutting down, and lost time and a more inconvienient shopping experience.

And what would the cost to taxpayers be if every shoplifter were prosecuted? How much would prices increase to cover that? How many stores would close because they couldn't afford the higher taxes? For that matter, what happens when more people end up with criminal convictions and can't find work (or are forced to settle for lower-paying jobs) as a result, reducing the tax revenue they can provide and placing more strain on taxpayer-funded support systems?

I'm not suggesting shoplifters should never be prosecuted, but it's a balancing act. You can't bring the full might of the judicial system to bear on every minor crime. Even putting aside the question of morality, it's just not practical. As you pointed out, resources are limited, and that means making decisions about what to overlook so more important things can be prioritized.