Informing Courts about the Retailer’s Right to Collect Civil Damages

Working with some 500 plus courts throughout the U.S., it is not surprising NASP hears a complaint or two about civil demand from the criminal bench, prosecutors and staff.  We often hear how “It’s unfair that retailers collect $200 even when they get their merchandise back” or that a probation officer is “telling the offender not to pay the fine.” Another favorite is “That’s double dipping – charging a civil fine and filing a criminal complaint.” We have even learned of judges who will dismiss the criminal case when an offender has received a civil demand letter from a retailer – whether paid or not. 

The divergence between courts and retail on this topic is nothing new. However, since this type of thinking continues to persist in the criminal justice system, we believe it is essential that criminal justice professionals be educated about the retailer’s right to collect civil fines and the purpose for it. Our extensive offender research indicates that civil demand is in fact a constructive solution to the shoplifting problem – especially when used in conjunction with other sanctions. 

To gain court support and understanding of this issue, we frequently include articles in our Infogram newsletter – sent to more than 2,500 police, probation and court subscribers each month – and regularly discuss the issue with our criminal and juvenile justice clients to educate them on the necessity for and reasons behind civil demand. More often than not, once the civil demand issue is clearly explained, the criminal justice professionals begin to soften their position and agree to be supportive of the retailer’s efforts. 

I thought it would be beneficial to share with you the three part explanation of civil demand which NASP provides to criminal justice professionals. We welcome retailers to utilize this explanation for the courts in their own local community should the opportunity arise. It works. 
History and Intent 

Civil restitution (also known as “civil demand” or “civil fine”) dates back to the 1970’s. This civil cause of action is intended to provide an additional remedy by which the victim’s of retail theft can recover their losses and offset ongoing security expenses. These security expenses result from the need to constantly protect their stores and merchandise from the 1 in 11 people who shoplift; a cost that would otherwise be passed on to honest consumers – in the form of higher prices. 
Deterrent Effect 

Civil fines serve as a deterrent to repeat offenses when the offenders discover the “price” they pay for a $25 shirt can be 10-20 times more than if they’d actually paid for it in the first place. Parents of juveniles are responsible for any fine levied against their child and often take their child’s shoplifting more seriously when they have to pay a $100-$500 civil fine from the retailer. 

According to our surveys with the shoplifting offenders themselves, civil fines rank as the third most effective deterrent action that a retailer can take after apprehending a shoplifter. Both adult and juvenile offenders ranked prosecution first, educational programs second and civil fines third out of all the available actions. Combining two or more of these actions further increases the deterrent effect. 
Benefits to the Community 

The practice of seeking civil restitution from shoplifting offenders is not only the retailer’s right; it is a legitimate and effective shoplifting and recidivism prevention tool, particularly when used in conjunction with education and/or prosecution. 

Support of the practice of civil demand by the criminal and juvenile justice community is vital to ensuring the effectiveness of this tool as well as its value in reducing recidivism in every community. In addition, when the court encourages offenders and/or their parents to pay any civil fine obligation to the retailer, they are helping them to take full responsibility for their actions which helps them close the door on shoplifting, permanently. 

A reciprocal and cooperative effort between the court and the retail victim sends a clear and consistent message to the offenders that shoplifting is serious, carries a variety of serious sanctions and penalties and will not be tolerated in the community. Most importantly, such efforts are the best way to effectively reduce the number of people who shoplift, reduce shoplifter recidivism and lessen the cost and impact of shoplifting on local communities. 

 ____________________________________________________ 

 NASP’s mission is to raise awareness about the harmful effects of shoplifting of youth, families and communities, unite public opinion toward constructive solutions, deliver needed programs and services and engage community action in prevention efforts to improve the lives of those affected and reduce the number of people who become involved.

 NASP is a non-profit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. www.shopliftingprevention.org.

Caroline Kochman
Executive Director
National Association for Shoplifting Prevention

Possibly Related Posts:


Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • RSS