Vol. 82, No. 114
I
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Thursday, March 5, 1981
I
New civil penalty snags shoplifters
Photo by Steve Dykes
Before 1979, a $3 item would only cost a caught shoplifter $175 in
forfeited bail money. Now, as one student discovered, the
shoplifting price-tag is $400 — $300 in bail forfeiture and $100 to
the store itself.
By DOUG BUTLER
Ol the Emerald
Shoplifting, a crime that boosts the cost of
merchandise for stores and buyers alike, has
become more costly to the shoplifter in Oregon.
In addition to a stiffer criminal penalty, the
shoplifter now faces a civil penalty.
Before 1979, a student caught shoplifting
for the first time could escape court by forfeiting
roughly $175 in bail, says Chuck Spinner, lawyer
for the University’s legal services office. Now a
student caught shoplifting will pay at least $400.
Spinner says he currently is helping a
student who stole an item worth three dollars.
She wound up paying about $100 in response to
a civil shoplifting demand letter and another
$300 in bail forfeiture, he says.
And she may have lost more than money.
“That one mistake may make it very hard for her
to continue in school,” Spinner says.
The new civil shoplifting legislation, passed
by the Legislature in 1979, allows stores to
collect between $100 and $250, plus the value of
the item taken, from the shoplifter. Usually a
store will send several demand letters before
deciding whether to pursue the claim in court.
But “an unusual part in the civil legislation”
prevents stores from turning over their claims to
collection agencies before the courts make a
judgment, Spinner says. If a shoplifter ignores
demand letters, the store must go to small claims
court and sue the shoplifter Because of econ
omic disincentives, many stores don't pursue
their claims beyond the demand-letter stage, he
adds.
“If a student caught shoplifting receives a
demand letter from a store, he should see an
attorney prior to paying it,” advises Spinner,
who estimates that he sees three to five students
each week on shoplifting-related matters.
Some shoplifters believe paying the civil
penalty will have a positive effect on their
criminal cases, Spinner says, but the criminal
courts pay no attention to civil cases.
To date, Lane County's small claims court
has ruled on only seven or eight civil shoplifting
cases. Although none of these cases involved
the University Bookstore, the majority of student
shoplifting cases come out of the bookstore,
says Skip Stokes of the Eugene police
department's Community Officer Patrol team.
Each week three to five shoplifters are
arrested in the bookstore, according to book
store general manager Jim Williams. The store
lost more than $37,000 to shoplifting in the book
department alone last year, Williams says.
The bookstore’s policy is to follow the new
civil procedures, he says, although "because
the law is relatively new, we have yet to go to
court.
"We are hoping that the penalties are so
severe that they (potential shoplifters) would
elect not to steal.”
The civil penalty doesn't offset the cost of
shoplifting because the store catches only a
small percentage of shoplifters, Williams says.
But the new penalties seem to be stopping
shoplifters, says Gloria Timmons, crime
prevention specialist for the Eugene police
department. The civil penalties also encourage
stores to catch shoplifters, she adds, because
the fines help merchants meet the costs of filing
shoplifting charges.
Filing shoplifting charges is costly to bus
inesses because employees must leave the
store to sign complaints, and stolen merchan
dise is held as evidence for a month or longer.
Consequently, the increase in shoplifting arrests
in Eugene last year — to approximately 1,300 —
is a sign that more shoplifters are being caught,
not that the crime is being committed more
often, Timmons says.
Oregon’s civil law for shoplifting, sponsored
by the Oregon Retail Council, is patterned after
a similar law in Washington, Timmons says.
Ninety-six percent of Washington shoplifters
paid the civil penalties after receiving two
demand letters.
Oregon's law has met with similar success,
she says.
Ninety percent of the shoplifters paid the
penalty on the first demand letter.
Profs say future of Polish movement hazy
By MIKE RUST
Of the Emerald
Poland today is "a society in revolt,”
but where the current turbulance will
lead is unclear, a panel of professors
said Wednesday.
About 50 people listened as three
University professors and a guest
panelist discussed Polish problems
ranging from economic conditions to the
respective roles played by church and
army within the country.
The panel included University profes
sors Joe Stone, Ron Wixman and Joe
Fiszman, and Portland State University
political scientist Ladis Kristof.
Stone, a University economist, began
by saying that the Polish economy was
“better than average" among the
planned economies of Eastern Europe.
The Polish Gross National Product has
grown about 7 percent per year
compared to an average of 5.5 percent
for other eastern-bloc countries, he said
"We can’t really point to overwhelming
economic problems as reason for recent
events,” he said.
Instead, he says, the struggle in
Poland is more political than economic.
The Polish union Solidarity is unlike
the “relatively decentralized” American
trade unions, he said. Solidarity is a
“countervailing monolith” created to
Photo by Erich Boekelheide
Joe Fiszmao, Ladis Kristof, Ron Wixman and Joe Stone.
oppose ‘‘unilateral decisions made by
the Polish government.”
The union primarily represents skilled
city workers. Their gains may come at the
expense of unskilled rural workers, he
suggested.
Political scientist Joe Fiszman disput
ed the idea that Poland was better off
economically than the rest of Eastern
Europe, maintaining that the economy of
Poland lags behind those of East
Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.
The Polish economy has been propped
up by $22 billion in borrowed funds —
money paid from exports.
The workers’ movement in Poland is
‘‘the tip of the iceberg,” brought on
because “a system was imposed on
Poland against its will.” Fiszman, sport
ing a Solidarity button obtained in
Warsaw, compared the Polish situation
to the civil war in El Salvador.
"People in Latin America and Eastern
Europe were never asked whether they
wanted to be in these spheres of influ
ence.’’
However, the panel agreed that
because of the “spheres of influence,”
the United States will not intervene
militarily, no matter what the Soviets do
in Poland.
In response to a question from the
audience, Ron Wixman of the University
geography department said the U S.
government would do "absolutely noth
ing" if the Soviets were to invade Poland.
"The Poles know it," he said. "We
didn’t do anything in Hungary when we
could have done something."
Wixman said that while military con
frontations between the two super
powers may take place in "Vietnam,
Tierra del Fuego and Mozambique," they
will avoid fighting in each others "back
yards.”
However, Wixman said that the Soviets
will attempt to avoid military intervention
until "the party is no longer in control."
Russian reluctance to invade is based
on many factors, including the likely
resistance of the Polish army, the fact
that the Red Army already is "bogged
down" in Afghanistan, the grassroots
nature of Polish opposition and the fact
that the Soviet economy is deteriorating
And most importantly, the Soviets want
to prevent the rearming of Western Eu
rope, Wixman said. An invasion of
Poland, he claimed, would lead to a
"shift to the right" in that area
Kristof said that within Poland the
Roman Catholic Church has identified
itself with Polish nationalism and culture,
and for this reason it opposes the Polish
governments.
"The church provides values and the
Continued on Page 4A