SHOP-LIFTING.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 September 1921, Page 10

SHOP-LIFTING.

REMARKABLE CASES IN SYDNEY

A Sydney Morning Herald reporter a few days ago tried to ascertain roughly, the losses which are being sustained by the big city firms on account of 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 thousand pounds a year on account of losses in this direction. That the loss all round is heavy is clear, as is also the fact that shoplifting is greatly on the increase; but 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 stocks. If the shoplifters applied their deft fingers only to one department the loss would quickly make itself felt. The trouble is, they weave their web around all .departments. One lifts a costly blouse from here, a silky, diaphonous thing that is easily crumpled 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 here 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 shoplifting has assumed, but the very difficult and delicate task confronting those who are trying to put it down. That the law operating in the case of shoplifters is ineffective and inadequate appears to be 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, as the glasses where they view themselves. Perhaps the Minister who drafted the measure had these lines in mind when he framed the First Offenders (Women) Act, 1918. He probably had in his 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 degradation on herself and her family. Thus, if she elects to take advantage of it. her case can be heard behind closed doors. The Act provides that, when any woman who has not been previously convicted of any offence punishable either summarily or on indictment, is charged before any Court with a minor offence, the hearing of the charge, and all proceedings in connection with it. unless the defendant elects to be tried in open court, shall be heard in private. It provides, further, in effect, that no two persons other than those immediately concerned shall have access to, or remain in, the Court. To remain in Court, after being directed to leave, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is to leave oneself open for punishment for contempt of Court. This, shortly, is ‘‘the closed door.” But it is bolted and barred by a further provision which sets out that no person shall publish in any newspaper a report or account of any proceedings when they are thus heard in private. For any infraction of this provision there is a penalty ...it exceding £5O. The representative of one firm thought this a wise provision. It so screened from exposure the woman who, because of some unaccountable lapse, came under the eye of the law for the first time, as to the error of her ways. Thus it is regarded as a wise provision.

GANGS AT WORK. But there is another side to the picture, which only illustrates the difficulty of the shop-lifting problem. The closed door, it is contended by others, is simply playing into the hands of professional shoplifting gangs. Before the Act came into force, a gang of, say, four would operate together. Now, working separately, they play the role simply of master minds. They get four accomplices, who are as puppets in their hands. These accomplices operate while the others remain unobserved in the background. The accomplices, of course, are new hands. It matters little if they are caught, because they are treated as first offenders behind closed doors, their fines are probably paid for them by those whose instrument they are, and they fade out of the shoplifting business. The gang simply employ more new hands, and the game goes on. There are thus two classes of firstoffenders—those, and the gangs behind them, who ought to be exposed to the public gaze, and those first offenders who, in the opinion of some, it would be unwise to expose—women often in good circumstances and surroundings who themselves are unable to account at times for their extraordinary conduct. There is the first offender, again, who is wily enough to elect to have her case tried in open court. If she feels she has a. good chance of upsetting a firm’s prosecution she courts the limelight, for she has in mind a case afterwards against the firm for damages for wrongful arrest. Again, for the sake of the firm’s prestige, and the crowd, of shoppers, a shoplifter, if caught red-handed, has to be taken in hand with as'little demonstration as possible, and in order to try to effect an arrest quietly, the offender is thus unwillingly afforded an opportunity at times to effect a clean breakaway through the maze of people and departments.

Representatives of firms are emphatic on the poiqt that the punishment is altogether too light. To quote one opinion, “Light fines, quite out of keeping with the seriousness of the offence or value of the articles stolen, are imposed, and in other cases offenders are released on bond to be of good behavior, for, say, twelve months. For the first offence there should be a straightout fine, independent of the value of the goods, and for the second offence imprisonment.” No small sum is involved often by firms in bringing offenders to book, and it is felt sometimes, with such light fines, that it is merely throwing good money after bad. “The fact,” remarked the representative of one firm, “that the old hands are always able to pa.y their fines, appears to show that they are making a living out of us..” Another argument for heavier fines is that firms by employing staffs specially, are protecting not only themselves but also the shopping public from the professional pickpocket, who, in common with the shoplifter, eagerly awaits the crowded sales and other busy shopping periods,

The punishment, it is strongly felt, should more adequately fit the crime, especially for a second offence. It was suggested in one quarter that it would be a good idea if the practice was not already in operation, to subject old offenders to the finger-print system. The firms employ their own detective staffs, mostly women, but police assistance is invariably sought, and is always readily forthcoming, the Inspector-General of Police fully appreciating the seriousness and the difficulty of the problem. KLEPTOMANIA. Shoplifting, especially in the case of some first offenders, is sometimes regarded by the public as simply kleptomania— sudden, unaccountable propensity, an irrestible impulse to steal —an uncontrollable moral lapse. One of the oldest detectives In the city has met only one case in his long years of experience which, lie says, could fairly be classed as kleptomania. It is a strange story, even the fringe of it which he thinks is desirable to relate, for the woman has since died. For twenty years she had been hoarding up stuff stolen from different shops. She never gave it away, nor did she use it. There was simply an uncontrollable impulse to get it and to hoard it; She was a respectable woman, whose property placed her far beyond want. She was finally caught. The hoarded i goods had assumed svtcli proportions that a police van had to be summoned to bring them in. Such were the fruits of a quite recent raid in a closely populated suburb that it took the police van all its time to get back to town. Women have confessed to some of the shop detectives that losses through card playing have prompted them to steal, and to take costly stuff home to give the impression that their money had been spent in legitimate channels. During the present year, one firm alone in the city has recorded over 100 successful prosecutions for shoplifting. The crime is not confined wholly to women, although they preponderate in number. As one detective put it, “a woman, if she is clever, is far more clever than any man.” Il is his experience, at all events. The complaint in some quarters is that some firms do not treat shoplifting seriously, and that if they all acted in co-operation, the . evil would be minimised. During a resent sale, there were 40 arrests in one big shop alone. To effect the arrest of one woman some time ago, it cost the firm about £l5, and this not unusual. In another case, detectives came upon several hundred pounds’ worth of goods.