U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Analysis of the Private Handling of a Class of Cases: Shoplifting in Supermarkets

NCJ Number
163044
Journal
Penal Issues Issue: 7 Dated: (March 1996) Pages: 6-9
Author(s)
F Ocqueteau; M L Pottier
Date Published
1996
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This French study addresses the extent of shoplifting in French "supermarkets," reasons for referring or not referring to the police people caught shoplifting, and the factors involved in businesses relying on the private security sector to deal with this problem.
Abstract
Shoplifting data furnished by the supermarkets encompass the years 1989-93. The average annual number of shoplifter apprehensions ranged from 565 in 1989 to 597 in 1993. The average percentage rate of referrals to police ranged from 21.1 percent in 1989 to 23.9 percent in 1993. For nearly a decade the Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the representatives of large- scale retailers, has attempted to deal with the rampant problem of shoplifting in supermarkets by partially handing over the management of cases to the private sector, monitored by the public prosecutor's offices. This is done through a simplified complaint-filing procedure (SCF). A survey of self-protection in French supermarkets provided an evaluation of the implementation of this arrangement. The average annual percentage rate of SCF use ranged from 30.9 percent of cases in 1989 to 33.7 percent in 1992. Supermarkets tend not to report shoplifting apprehensions to the police when the offender has not been previously apprehended by private security, when the offender admits to the theft and returns or pays for the stolen goods, or when the stolen goods are indispensable articles. Supermarkets tend to refer shoplifter apprehensions to the police when the offender is recalcitrant, is a repeat offender, or had accomplices. This report also discusses the reasons for using or not using the SCF procedure and the various patterns of trust or mistrust of the police by business managers. 1 table and 2 figures