2016年8月9日星期二

自助式盜竊

Bill,

I got bound over today by the magistrate, just as you predicted. Not sure if this is normal procedure for the DOJ, but I even got a letter in response from the chief prosecutor before my court date informing me of their decision. You must've heard this a thousand times by now, but I shan't waste the chance that they've given me. I can and will be a better person from now on and do everything I possibly can to ensure that I don't end up in the same position as I have been in the past month. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you one last time. Even if you think that all you did was offer words of comfort and (minor) advice, I assure you that it meant the world to me. A complete and utter stranger, who I had not even met in real life, took time out of his day to look over the draft of a letter, a request that came out of the blue and also kept in contact with me, offering me advice all the while and expecting nothing in return. All I can say now is that I won't let you down. Maybe this is where we part ways, and maybe we'll never talk to one another again. Just know that I will always remember the kindness that you have shown me and all others in similar situations, and hope that you will continue to offer help to those that made a mistake and ended up on the wrong side of the law. I don't know why you made the jump from being a prosecutor to helping those being prosecuted, but please, continue to do so. It might be a thankless job, one where those you help simply vanish after their cases are closed, but an important one nonetheless, and our society will suffer a great loss should you decide to stop. Thank you for your sacrifice and service.


XXX

前些時提及的大學生給我寫了上面這篇電郵, 我鬆了口氣, 好像是自己受到的寬待, 獲法外施恩的是自己一樣。他這件案纏擾了兩個月, 圓滿結束了, 也是他人生新的開始。我相信他會經此一役, 變成更好的、對社會更有貢獻的人。他這封信是對我的鼓勵, 不單是因為他申請成功, 而是他的悔悟。我手上還有幾宗, 大部份我都感受到他們犯錯後的煎熬。有位女生還未上庭已和我通了40篇電郵, 我像在做輔導工作, 我不想放棄任何一個犯了小錯的人獲得自新的機會, 陪伴他們走過爭取過程的每一步, 也希望分享到他們獲寬待那一刻的釋懷。

早幾天看到一篇Australian National University犯罪學家Dr Taylor對超市盜竊硏究的報導, 把店鋪盜竊的人稱為SWIPERS--seemingly well-intentioned patrons engaging in routine shoplifting (swipe這個字其中一個解釋為「偷」, 所以拼了swipers這字出來)。澳洲兩大超級市場Coles同Woolworth近年都設有自助購物的出納, 顧客自己掃描貨品的電腦條碼, 由頭到尾都不涉職員處理。問題來了。超市發覺紅蘿蔔的出售量比起存貨量還要多。理由好簡單, 蔬果類多數沒有預先包裝, 顧客選購時用膠袋裝好, 付款時自行過磅及輸入貨品種類, 有人會把貴價貨譬如車厘子及提子當作紅蘿蔔和洋葱來付款, 就等如以前沒有電腦條碼年代換轉價錢貼紙的做法(switch label)。有些人當初是無心之失搞錯了, 之後赫然發覺這種瞞天過海的方法十分容易, 所以便養成這種習慣了。當然, 不涉自行磅重及輸入種類的貨品, 便乘機少掃幾件。

Dr Taylor, who began her career trying to outsmart in-store security at UK grocery giant Tesco, said one of the biggest issues with self-scan was that otherwise honest customers seemed to regularly use it to underpay for groceries.

These shoppers often got their start in stealing by accidentally not scanning an item or scanning a grocery item for a cheaper item.

"But upon experiencing how easy it was they continued to steal regularly," Dr Taylor said.

"It has been suggested that perpetrators of this kind of discount theft would not ordinarily steal, would not consider shoplifting by any other modus operandi and do not necessarily even view their actions as theft.

"In fact behaviour such as the carrot trick is often referred to as cheating rather than stealing, a means of gamifying an otherwise mundane or pedestrian experience."

In fact behaviour such as the carrot trick is often referred to as cheating rather than stealing.
(4/8/2016 Sydney Morning Herald)

這位犯罪學家相信, 有三份一自助購物的超市顧客經常這樣偷竊。看來我還是少用這種自助購物機為妙, 正是瓜田李下, 容乜易被視作那三份一的人。我一般都會用信用卡而少用現金付款, 但買很少東西時未必會印單據(因為當你買少數量貨品時, 這些自助購物機會問你印不印單據), 有時只買一兩件我會不印, 為了環保嘛。從今之後要份外小心, 多做保障自己避受嫌疑的事好了。

25 則留言:

  1. 其實不用過份擔心,即使沒有印單據職員一按系統便可找回。
    減少 discount theft 可學習其它超市。曾在美國和荷蘭超市用手提 scanner 邊買邊 scan,最後在自助 counter checkout,顧客要預先登記個人資料,checkout 時會電腦會根據風險評估(過往不良紀錄,大量貴價貨 etc)抽樣要求人手抽查有否遺留。試過看圖撳機搞錯青瓜同翠玉瓜,撞正抽查,不過職員一看冇“案底”就知不是故意,改好紀錄就搞掂。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 澳洲沒有這樣先進。我習慣用手推車或購物籃, 未付款一定不把貨品放入自携環保袋。

      刪除
    2. compared to the ordinary shoplifting, it is more difficult to prove that the 'discount thefts' are dishonest, they might explain that it is a mistake
      how to prove the discount theft has the intend to steal?

      刪除
    3. True. It is a matter of inference. Discount theft is difficult to infer dishonesty and reasonable doubt always exists. It is more difficult to prove than the switch label case. One way of preventing is to separate the item icons on different pages on the touch screen computer so that expensive items are distanced away from the cheap ones.

      刪除
  2. this is a 'first world problem' though, only one chained supermarket in HK is using 'self-check out' but it does not apply to fresh food that are not labelled so there will be no 'discount' problem

    if a customer omits some items during self-check out, it will be harder to explain it away

    another problem:

    i have visited a store and decided to buy a bottle of drink. I held that bottle at hand and continued my shopping in that store. I could not find another good that i planned to buy and i left the shop, holding the bottle at hand and forgetting to pay for it.

    if i am stopped, i believe that i would be arrested, but will i be prosecuted / convicted?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. You may be arrested but may not be prosecuted let alone convicted. It is not difficult for the court to find no case to answer.

      A lady wrote to me recently. She sustained serious injuries in a traffic accident and was on sick leave for 7 months. Her mobility was impaired due to the injuries. She used her own trolley to go to the supermarket to buy things (I don't know how it looks like). She was on anti-anxiety medication. One day, she went to the supermarket and put some items (rolls of tissue paper, Yakult and something else I forgot). The total value was $50 odd. All the goods were not covered by anything. She went out of the shop forgetting to pay and was stopped by the security guard. A report was made to the police. She was arrested and taken back to the police station. She explained that she just forgot to pay. She was granted police bail and was told to report back 2 weeks later. She wrote to me to seek my advice. She said it just happened she had exhausted all her sick leave and would report back to work the following day. She did not want the matter to drag on. I advised her to fight the charge and in the meantime she also wanted to see whether she should just ask for a bind over to save all the troubles. She wrote a long letter describing her physical and mental conditions. She also mentioned the drug the doctor prescribed to her for her anxiety. I looked at the side effect. It did not cause forgetfulness. Still I told her to weigh the balance. I would prefer her to fight the case. Then, when she reported back to the police, no charge was laid against her.

      刪除
  3. 很多人擅取超市/街市一些小東西: 例如: 提子, 花生, 荔枝.....他們不問自取數粒, 名為試吃, 貪心的就十數粒, 一些街市商販要標示:試吃一粒一元, 這樣又算甚麼?

    回覆刪除
  4. 標少你好,又有野想請教
    呢個case,考慮謀殺同誤殺有咩因素?
    可否評論/解釋一下?

    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20160811/55485112

    我見原本告謀殺
    後來又變誤殺

    http://std.stheadline.com/instant/articles/detail/189873-%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF-%E7%A8%B1%E4%B8%8D%E5%BF%8D%E8%87%AA%E9%96%89%E5%85%92%E7%95%99%E4%BA%BA%E4%B8%96+%E5%85%AD%E6%97%AC%E7%88%B6%E8%AA%8D%E8%AA%A4%E6%AE%BA%E4%B8%8B%E6%9C%88%E5%88%A4%E5%88%91

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 警方在兇殺案絕大部份會先控以謀殺, 以本案斬了這麼多刀, 直覺會構成謀殺, 但如果在激怒(provocation)(火遮眼失了理智)或精神出問題(diminished responsibility)可以改判誤殺。

      刪除
    2. 謝謝回覆
      咁同定罪之後求情減刑,應該唔一樣?

      除左謀殺有呢d情況可以修改罪行,有無其它例子?
      例如如果一個人被激怒,一時衝動打人,就只有認罪之後求情?

      謝謝!


      刪除
    3. 定罪之後的求情只會減輕刑罰, 不會減輕罪名, 減輕罪名罰法就不一樣。假如走了謀殺罪, 依例判終身監禁, 求情都不能減刑、 因為是mandatory life imprisonment. 除了謀殺, 很多情況都可修改罪名或判較輕的罪名, 譬如打劫變盜竊, 危險駕駛變不小心駕駛。

      被激怒而打人, 「激怒」只是求情因素。激怒只能用於謀殺, 用來判較輕的誤殺。

      刪除
  5. 阿大: 第一篇就是價值110元案件事件的完結篇吧? if so, good for him and good for you. 你的good deed will not be forgotten.

    馬鹿

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 是呀! 我所做是否好事, 會否會被遺忘, 毫無關係, 我真不在乎, 我自己都忘記了不少, 實在太多, 做完一單刪除一單, 手頭幾單未完結, 今天又有新的。其實最重要是這人經此一役的驚嚇, 以後好好做人, 也存助人之心。我沒有你幹大事的胸懷, 只能做這些小事。

      刪除
  6. http://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20160812/s00001/1470937631777

    標少,人間悲劇也...

    回覆刪除
  7. Refer to this tragic case of manslaughter, if the dad is suffering from severe depression ( according to the news) , I believe other sentencing option is more appropriate , such as hospital order. Refer to a similar case in UK (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/r-v-clarence-sentencing-remarks.pdf) I believe a treatment is more important for the welfare of the dad.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Thank you for referring me to R v TANIA CLARENCE. In the instant case, as reported, Poon J obtain pre-sentence reports including that from the psychiatrist. Apparently the depression of the deft did not call for a hospital order.

      刪除
  8. https://hk.news.yahoo.com/荃灣水泥藏屍案18歲女被告獲撤銷控罪-073933311.html
    以標少之見,此人能獲撤銷控罪的原因是什麼?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 唔識喎。告佢串謀, 即只靠警誡下所承認的證供, 可能這證供本身不能毫無合理疑點把她定罪, 也有可以是她肯指證其他被告, 考慮到她在整件案扮演角色較少, 所以讓她做污點證人。這可能性也不小, 辯方沒有申請訟費, 即大家講掂數, 否則無理由不申請訟費。

      刪除
  9. 唔係,係佢哋一齐w h a t s a p p殺人埋屍过程,作為一個正常人,見到不法行動应當立即報案,唔報案都立即遠離班殺人犯,呢個女仔心智有問題。

    回覆刪除
  10. 係不能分辯善惡,一個正常既都唔会與坏人為伍,參入整個殺人過程,这超越道德和法律。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 今時今日, 正常人唔知標隼係乜。

      刪除
  11. http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160812/bkn-20160812172250917-0812_00822_001.html?refer=fn2
    其實練官在法律上真的有權要求OC case解釋,定只係擺官威?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 當然有, 因為控方申請押後, 練官有權不批, 考慮S.20 Cap 227.

      刪除