The physical design of the store makes it clear in most cases. The checkouts form a physical barrier between the “haven’t paid yet” area and the “have paid“ area. It is difficult to assume an attempt to steal in the former, much easier once one passes to the later with unpaid goods.
The legal definition of theft - at least where I live - is all about intention. It involves an intention to deprive another of their property. No intention, no theft. If you absent-mindedly walk out of a store without paying for something, no theft has occurred. When our kids were babies, we used to put the shopping in the pram. One day I left the supermarket and down the street discovered a loaf of bread in a different section of it, that I’d forgotten to pay for. I went back and explained myself to the security guard, did he call the police? No, he commended me for my honesty, and let me pay for it with the self-serve checkouts.
For a supermarket, their biggest concern with theft is the repeat offenders. If it is an unclear situation, it is in their best interest to give the customer the benefit of the doubt. But, if the same unclear situation happens again and again, that’s when the intent (which is legally required to constitute stealing) becomes obvious. Ultimately though, it is up to the store staff, police, prosecutors and magistrates to apply a bit of common sense in deciding what is likely to be intentional and what likely isn’t. But yes, given theft is defined in terms of inferring people’s intentions, “zero tolerance” is a concept of questionable meaningfulness in that context.
And yes, I do realize that intention is part of the law. That wasn’t what I was saying really. I am saying that because we have that, we are implicitly accepting that a lot of this stuff cannot be ironclad. There has to be room for interpretation and enforcement.
This is where the law ends up discriminating in practice. The law professor who claims “I forgot it was in my pocket” is far more likely to be believed than the homeless person who makes the same claim. If it makes it as far as the prosecutors - and it probably won’t - they’ll see the homeless person as an easy win (gotta make that quota, keep up those KPIs), the law professor’s case will be put in the “too hard” basket.
Unless they have the law professor on video “forgetting it was in their pocket” again and again and again. With enough repetition, claims that it was an accident cease to be believable. Although then the law professor will probably have three esteemed psychiatrists willing to testify to kleptomania, and the case will go back in the too-hard basket again
>This is where the law ends up discriminating in practice. The law professor who claims “I forgot it was in my pocket” is far more likely to be believed than the homeless person who makes the same claim.
The legal definition of theft - at least where I live - is all about intention. It involves an intention to deprive another of their property. No intention, no theft. If you absent-mindedly walk out of a store without paying for something, no theft has occurred. When our kids were babies, we used to put the shopping in the pram. One day I left the supermarket and down the street discovered a loaf of bread in a different section of it, that I’d forgotten to pay for. I went back and explained myself to the security guard, did he call the police? No, he commended me for my honesty, and let me pay for it with the self-serve checkouts.
For a supermarket, their biggest concern with theft is the repeat offenders. If it is an unclear situation, it is in their best interest to give the customer the benefit of the doubt. But, if the same unclear situation happens again and again, that’s when the intent (which is legally required to constitute stealing) becomes obvious. Ultimately though, it is up to the store staff, police, prosecutors and magistrates to apply a bit of common sense in deciding what is likely to be intentional and what likely isn’t. But yes, given theft is defined in terms of inferring people’s intentions, “zero tolerance” is a concept of questionable meaningfulness in that context.