and still. limited resources means some crimes will go unpunished.
let's start with the ones above $1,000 first, hm?
let's start with the ones above $1,000 first, hm?
The pair is accused of stealing around $3,200 worth of merchandise, primarily meat, seafood, and produce, from one or more Safeway locations across 14 separate incidents.
obviously if someone is a repeat offender then as they cross the threshold, chop-chop, straight to jail, charge them with the whole batch of crimes together.
it doesn't mean keep no records of crimes and don't respond at all.
Initially it's a report. Place, time, allegation, supporting evidence.
The question is how much (automated) detection ought to be allowed, what's the retention period, and so on.
Flock is a bad trade-off, but that doesn't mean there's no point in collecting data. If every datum is a semi-tangible report, then the sensitivity/specificity has quite a good change of being high (especially compared to dragnet surveillance with post-hoc data fishing).
Look what happened with shoplifters.
Like fare hopping, first half of my life i thought how unfair that i have to drone away as a tool of society and pay like a shmuck meanwhile these freeloaders have happily escaped the matrix.
second half of life i realized being unwilling or unable to pay $2.50 for public transist is an issue between that person and their life situation. If that’s what they need, I support the subsidy.
The criminals start with the ones below $1,000 and then progress above. If you start punishing it earlier, you won't have to deal with as many above $1,000 crimes in the first place.
Your claim makes for a good sound bite but its just not how it works. Subway evasion isn’t a gateway crime.
A person doesn’t steal a sandwich from 7-11, not get caught, then suddenly realize they can drain unsuspecting grandmas’ bank accounts by implementing a long con through masquerading as a long lost nephew through Facebook.