Victoria provides for an official warning for first-time shoplifters charged with stealing property with a retail value of $50 or under. Some police officials argue that shoplifting is no different from other types of larceny and should not therefore be singled out for a formal diversion policy. This criticism is justified. Diversion policy should address all lesser offenses. Some police also note that leniency toward first offenders fails to consider undetected offenses. This possibility does not invalidate a leniency policy for first offenders, but it does focus on the importance of involving police in diversion decisions, since they are likely to be familiar with persons who have displayed antisocial behavior not recorded in official convictions. Other police criticisms of Victoria's warning policy are that a warning has little effect on an adult's behavior and that an official policy of first-offense cautioning eliminates deterrence for those without criminal records. This argument has merit; mitigating circumstances other than a first offense per se should be required for a warning. Diversion for special cases, such as child abuse and domestic assault must take into account the context of the offense and the likelihood that it will be repeated without extensive intervention. 6 references and Victoria's diversion policy statement.