Law is a set of norms derived from generally accepted social norms, which in turn derive from the moral norms generally supported by the individuals comprising a society. When the acceptable moral and social norms undergo a major shift without a change in the relevant legal norms, there is a misalignment of law and society. Till this asymmetry is resolved, law is broken with increasing frequency, straining the resources of law enforcement apparatus of the state. Enforcing a law against a large number of citizens, who keep breaking it because it is not being aligned with their newfound morality, creates a widening divide between the state and society. The enforcing police is then perceived as the ‘other’. No police can function effectively unless it has the support of the people at large and it has to act against only a small part of the population. The crime of shoplifting represents such a dilemma for America and its police forces.

Two months ago, CBS News reported the findings of a survey that revealed that the percentage of Americans who say that they have shoplifted has increased to 30% in 2026 from 24% in 2024! If nearly one-third of citizens indulge in a crime, the criminals are likely to be from every subset of society including the affluent and the influential, not excluding the law-makers, law-enforcers, the judiciary and the preachers. It is not hyperbole; judges Stephen R. Schaefer, Learned D. Berry, and Robert Cicale were arrested for shoplifting and so were Indian State Senator Ron Alting, Connecticut State Congressman Raghib Allie-Brennan, Delaware State Congressman Gerald L. Brady and California State Congresswoman Mary Hayashi. Numerous police officers find place on this board of infamy as do academics like professors Aaron Banks and Dr. Bruce Carroll. It also includes preachers of the moral law like Rev. Aidan Smith, head priest and dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Pittsburgh, who was arrested in February 2026 for concealing merchandise worth more than $1000 under his clothing at Walmart.

It is quite clear that shoplifting in the US is increasingly presenting an instance of this misalignment. It has led to increasing frequency of violent resistance to arrest, attacks on police, increasing necessity of using taser guns and even firearms during arrest and the resulting death and injuries to the accused as well as the policemen. The harm to the accused, who is considered innocent unless proved guilty in a court, in spite of all the video and audio evidence from the bodycams worn by the police at all times, inflames anti-police sentiment and the vicious cycle continues.

The case of George Floyd, who was being arrested on 25 May 2020 for presenting a counterfeit $20 bill at a store and refused to return the goods while being under the influence of intoxicating drugs, shows the perilous situation faced by the police. He was violently resisting arrest and police had to pin him to the ground while he kept repeating that he could not breathe. He died and this led to large-scale rioting in many cities, fuelling the Black Lives Matter movement and the countermovement Blue Lives Matter. Police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted for murder and three other officer received prison sentences. The city of Minneapolis paid $27 million to Floyd’s family in settlement. Properties worth billions were damaged and many stores were ransacked by the rioters.

In a democracy, vote bank-driven postures are unavoidable and in the US, several politicians took up the defence on behalf of shoplifters leading to “no jail, no bail” laws, that made police release the accused on the spot, on personal bond. Minors cannot sign bond and are released into parental custody and generally get away with community service. Therefore, parents use minor children for shoplifting. The defence most frequently yelled during arrest for shoplifting is one or more of these – “I can’t breathe,” “I’m a minor,” “I’m pregnant,” “I have back problem,” “I have an infant/pet waiting at home to be fed,” or “I have mental issues; I do not remember anything.” After the Floyd incident convictions, police have to watch their own back. While the police exercise restraint, some of the criminals pepper-spray the police officer and flee.

The politicians have not only made laws that send a signal to the shoplifters that they will get away with a slap on the wrist, some of them have rationalised and even justified the crime. New York State Congresswoman Emily Gallagher said in August this year that shoplifting essential items like soap and toothpaste are to satisfy a “biological need” and these are “crimes of poverty”. Dave Pinto, Minnesota State Congressman recommended studies on the “benefit of shoplifting and retail theft.” When castigated, he said the remarks were meant to be sarcastic. All such politicians ignored the fact that bulk of the stolen goods end up on online shops and the money goes to feed the drug addiction of the criminals.

Academics have classified shoplifters into three categories, those who do it for need, greed or due to kleptomania, an impulse control disorder that has many features of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). In the first and last, which is claimed as defence in a majority of cases, absolve the individual of his responsibility. Many of those arrested are found to be in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Politicians go on to rationalise and justify drug use on the same grounds as are used for theft; explanations like a childhood of deprivation and abuse, single parent struggling to bring up a kid or a violent domestic partner are cited for rationalising the criminal conduct and drug abuse.

Contrary to these rationalisations, a 2023 article “Myth of the starving shop lifter” showed that the bulk of shoplifting is neither for need nor due to a psychiatric disorder and is for greed. Another study by the US National Institute of Health brought out that most of the habitual shoplifters were indulging in other criminal activity too and were likely to be drug users. Rationalisation is a unique human trait of converting the patently irrational into something apparently rational; animals never rationalise. The poorest rarely do shoplifting, they are worried about unwashed bodies and clothes standing out in the glittering stores. Secondly, shoplifting in expensive brand-stores, by those who are otherwise reasonably comfortable financially, defies these explanations. As for impulse control, that is the primary requirement for formation of a society and rule of law.

There is another important reason for not rationalising crime and drug abuse, both of these being bedfellows. The foundations of society lie in the axiomatic belief in subordinating the individual interest to the larger interest of society. That is the reason every society sends it most active young men and women to fight wars so that the society is saved. Death of a soldier in war is a solemn event but not regretted; it is called sacrifice for the motherland and even parents and spouses of a martyred soldier talk of it with pride. Criminal laws and courts are fallible and yet alleged criminals are sent by courts to prison and gallows, even as mistakes are detected when the person has been in prison for decades or had been executed a long time ago. These too are instances of sacrifice of the individual for the larger interest of the society in not choosing the alternative of not punishing anyone because of the apprehension of such mistakes.A society will undergo rapid decline if criminal activity and anti-social behaviour are rationalised by its law-makers and courts and this leads to increasing tendency of citizens to drift into a life of conflict with law and social harmony. American society seems to be on that slippery slope. / DAILY WORLD /

 ( DAILY WORLD )