SHOPLIFTING.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 August 1921, Page 1

SHOPLIFTING.

REMARKABLE CASES IN SYDNEY, SYDNEY, Aug. i2. A “Sydney Morning Herald” reportr*)T a few days ago tried to ascertain, roughly, the losses which are being sustained by the big city linns on account ol shoplifting. That it was a hopeless quest was apparent from the outset. One big firm, according to report, wipes off its books, with a certain amount of cheerful resignation, several thousands of pounds a year on account of losses in this, direction. That the loss all round is heavy is clear, as is also thp fact that shoplifting is greatly on the increase; hut the position of any of the big shops illustrates the difficulty of expressing in monetary terms the extent of it. In all these establishments there are scores of departments, each carrying immense stock. If the shoplifters applied their deft fingers only to one department the loss would quickly, make itself fdt. The trouble is. they weave their web around all departments. One lifts a costly blouse from here, a silky diaphanous thing that is easily crumpled in the hand and as quickly dropped into a bag; another, a skirt from somewhere else: another, a hand-bag from another counter. Thus, amidst heavy stocks, it leaves only a comparatively

small hiatus hero and there, and where there are veritable mountains of stock throughout a shop the problem of estimating the losses is easily understood. SHIELDING THE CULPRITS. One has to get behind the scenes to appreciate properly, not merely the dimensions, which shop-lifting has sumed. but the very difficult and delicate task confronting those who are trying to put it down. That the law operating in the case of shop-lifters is ineffective and inadequate appears to U the general opinion. This is certainly the case as regards the penalties inflicted, although the attitude towards what is known as “the closed door in the case of first offenders reveals two quite opposite views. Women are frail, Ay, ;, s tlio glasses where they view themselves. Perhaps the Minister who dratted the measure had these lines in mind when he framed the First Offenders (Women) Act, 918. He probably lmd in mind the frail woman who. on some sudden impulse, temporarily lapses for the first time from the straight path, and who, if publicly exposed, heaps degiadatom upon herself and her family. Thus it she elects to take advantage of it, m-r case can lie heard* behind closed doors. Tlio Act provides that ,wlieti any woman who has not been previously convicted of any offence punishable either summarily or oil indictment, m charged before any Court with a minor obento, Lho hearing of th e charge, and all niooocdiin'S in connexion with it. unless the defendant elects to be tried in open eonrt, shall in heard in private. It provides, further, in (‘fleet, that no persons other than those immediately concern, d shall have access to, or remain j„ the Court, To remain in Court, after being directed to leave, in mro.daneo with the provisions ol the Act, is to leave oneself open to punishment [tn contempt of Court. This shortly ij “the closed door.” Hut it is bolted and barred hy a further provision, which sets out that no person -hall pi>»- ) list, in any newspaper a report or a<c(hi 11 1 of any proceeding* when they aie heard in private. For any information ol this provision there is a penalty not exceeding £SO. The representative «f one firm thought this a wise provision. It so screened from exposure the woman who, because of some unaccountable liipsc, came under the eye of the law for the first time, as to give her a fair chance quietly to see tlio error of her ways. Thus it is regarded as a wise provision. GAXihS AT WORK. Rut there is another side to the picture. which only illustrates the chib cully of fhe shop-lifting problem. Ihe closed door, it is contended by others, is. simply playing into the hands of professional shoplifting gangs. Refore the Act came into force, a gang of, say. lour would <»| crate together. Sow, working separately, they play the role simply of master minds. They get j four accomplices, who are as puppet* in their hands. These accomplices oper|me while the others remain in the I background. 'llie accomplices, of course j ~,-e new hands. It matters little d ; they arc caught, because they are ' i treated as first offenders behind chvcd j doors, their lines are probably .paid for Ilium bv those whose instruments they ' ;lir , and they fade out of the slmp-lift- , ing business. The gang simply employ j more now hands, and the game goes uu - I There are thus two classes of first ' offenders—those, and the gangs behind I them, who ought to be exposed to the public gaze, and these first offenders 1 who, in lho opinion of some, it would !;|>o unwise to e-pose women often in , i good circumstances and surroundings , who themselves are unable to account | at times for their extraordinary coni' ' duct. There is the first offender, again. ' who is wily enough to elect to have her * case tried in open court. If she. lot Is ’ she has a good chance of upsetting a firm’s prosecution she courts the limes li.rht, for she has in mind a ease aiter- ■ wards against the firm for damages for 1 wrongful arrest. Again, for tlio sake ‘ of the firm’s prestige, and the crowd f of shoppers, a shoplifter, if caught redlpnded, lias to bo taken in band with a;- little demonstration as possible, ami in order to try to effect an arrest quiet- , lv the offender is thus unwillingly afforded an opportunity at times to ofleel : n clean breakaway through the maze ol people and departments.