I thought "extortion" (ask for money and threat of legal action) was how settlements were supposed to work. Will this set a precedent and have broader consequences?
Criminal cases are the state vs. the citizen, whereas civil cases are citizen vs. citizen. (The same action can result in both types of cases.) You're not supposed to profit by inhibiting the state from prosecuting.
So the end result again feels pretty similar.
Walmart won't report you to the police if you agree to
- pay them $5000?
- undertake a voluntary 'community service program' at a Walmart designated location (store cleaner on the shift nobody wants at Walmart) for 20 hours per week for 12 months
Remember, that one conviction for minor shoplifting could permanently impact your life. Eg: limiting job opportunities, places you can live, whether you get to see your children in a custody dispute, whether you are entitled to vote or stand for election.
If Walmart knew someone had virtually no other option, they could press their unfair advantage.
And minor shoplifting is not a felony.
I'm not sure you understand my point. I'm not saying the extortion is a good idea, I'm saying it's not all that different from civil not-extortion tactics.
In fact the only reason it's illegal is because of that. The state doesn't want criminals to get off easier. Or so parent comment was arguing. If you think the justice system is as bad as you claim, you should prefer Walmarts arrangement.
For example, you get a person in the Walmart system, a guard or whatever, that has records on people that have commited crimes in Walmart. Joe Consumer gets caught shoplifting and pays a fee for it to go away, and doesn't get turned in to the police. Now, the security guard with the profiles starts going outside the framework and begins blackmailing people like Joe. These will mostly be poorer people and are very easy to prey upon in such a scenario.
I wonder of the prosecutor who was talking about using his discretion understood the irony of what he was saying or the hypocrisy of his position.
> Mr. Marquis said his office prosecutes serial shoplifters, but police send him few cases involving first-time offenders. When they do, Mr. Marquis is likely to give the shoplifter a citation and order him or her to perform community service, he said.
What irony? What hypocrisy?
The discretion been referenced in that quote is not the prosecutor's but that of the police who send him cases.
The only irony I see here is that a program designed to help first time offenders actually ends up being worse for them, because first time offenders rarely get prosecuted?