We all know that stealing is wrong.
In countries elsewhere, theft is punishable by having a limb lopped off. Here, a quick escort to the security office and a hushed plea arrangement with the Crown, often under the Young Offenders Act (or its most recent incarnation), and the problem just goes away. But does it?
It’s hard to say where the notion of taking stuff starts. Most youngsters have helped themselves to a chocolate bar or pack of gum, only to be marched back into the store and taught a lesson. We believe most parents do teach those values and store owners understand such a situation.
But as children age, well into public school, that lesson should have been learned. It then becomes a case of needing a heavier hand to deal with the problem since right and wrong should have already been established.
Pressures, of course, mount in the teen years. Pressure to have the latest accessory or the absence of cash to purchase goods makes lifting things pretty tempting. But again, if that right and wrong theory is not thoroughly ensconced, it makes it pretty tempting to just help oneself.
Curious to us is an emerging attitude of entitlement without cost. As the riots in England occurred a few weeks ago, two young women were interviewed on an American TV network. Expecting outrage at the looting and vandalism, we were taken aback by their analysis. It went something to the effect of “well, the shop owners have stuff and we want it … We will take what we want… ”
We found such thinking telling in many ways.
First, shop owners were business people and therefore wealthy. Second, gainful employment is not their first choice in acquiring said goods. Third, the consequences of general civil disobedience disappear when fires and rioting offer up a free pass to loot and vandalize at will. Fourth, that type of theft wasn’t really stealing – it was just helping themselves to some free stuff.
Closer to home, larger cities in the United States face the prospect of flash mobs and organized looting. At opportune times, a text message is sent to accomplices encouraging a mob looting. Basically, several people meet at the store and, in a flurry of activity, help themselves to items on store shelves. Since it is a mob, the store owners and/or security are helpless in stopping what could quickly become a riotous event.
Even closer to home, one small business had its equipment stolen a few nights ago. This week, an indignant owner of stolen fowl chronicles his family’s misfortune. Not long ago another store owner suffered losses in the tens of thousands of dollars at the hands of an employee helping herself.
It is well and good to suggest insurance will look after the losses. Costs to the businesses increase – and also to consumers. In the case of the fowl snatchers, the time and effort invested in raising special poultry can never be recaptured. A sense of distrust replaces the long-standing notion that we can all go to work or get away for a few days without fear of being cleaned out. Thievery seems to be catching on, despite locked doors and secure premises.
As mortifying, if not more-so, is the seemingly regular letter to the editor we receive from a grieving family member that left flowers or a tribute at a grave-marker, only to have it stolen. That type of crime is particularly heinous, because the theft is entirely senseless and cannot help but be felt very personally.
Of course, the problem with curbing that emerging attitude is many of the larger cases we noted were performed by adults; people of an age that should know better. They are crooks, as are those who accept stolen goods for the sake of getting a really good deal.
Maybe it is time for harsher penalties. Left unchecked, there will only be more people helping themselves.
We all pay for thievery.
