Theft at Socks for Feet Outlet: Charges and Penalties
Theft at Socks for Feet Outlet: Charges and Penalties
The nature of theft at Socks for Feet Outlet makes the entire case an interesting adventure for judges and attorneys in any jurisdiction. The background of the case is based on the witnesses’ statements and events around the Socks for Feet Outlet at the time of the crime. Based on the testimony of the store’s security officer, White Bo Foot, three people entered the outlet on 20th May 2016. Bo Foot saw one of the suspects, Bubba Hert, picking and hiding three dozen pairs of Big Guy brand socks in his pants. In the Hammer Toe section, the second suspect, Skeeter Redrum, picked two dozen pairs of Hang Nail brand socks before putting them into Summer Breeze’s, the third suspect, purse. Security officers later arrested the suspects at Just for Kicks Martial Arts studio before recovering the items. An attorney can determine the case based on the Criminal Code for the State of Georgia.
Based on the nature of the offenses and the witness statements, it is evident that the suspects committed a crime. They contravened various criminal codes as stipulated in Georgia Codes on Crimes and Offenses. However, the events surrounding theft at the Socks for Feet store shows that the three suspects contravened different criminal codes. Owing to this observation, some suspects will share charges while others will face different accusations and penalties based on the criminal codes that they contravened.
As a district attorney, I would propose that the first suspect be charged with the offenses of theft by taking, theft by shoplifting and robbery. The second suspect should also face charges of theft by taking, shoplifting, and contravention of retail property fencing and related matters. The third suspect should face charges emanating from the theft by receiving stolen property and shoplifting. These proposals are founded on numerous factors inferred from the circumstances of the crime.
For instance, the events surrounding the theft at Socks for Feet Outlet reveal that the first and the second suspect committed the crime of theft by taking. According to GA Code § 16-8-2, a person commits a crime of theft by taking when they unlawfully take the property of another person with an intention of depriving the owner the asset. The criminal code does not stipulate the manner in which the suspect takes the property but only indicates that taking one’s property without their consent amounts to the breach of the law. The first and the second suspects committed this crime as they took dozens of pairs of socks without paying for them substantiating their intention to deprive the owner of his property.
Additionally, Hert and Redrum committed theft by shoplifting. Georgia Code asserts that one is liable to stealing by shoplifting when he/she acts alone or colludes with another person(s) to get merchandise without paying. Also, one commits robbery when they conceal merchandise with the intention of depriving the owner of his ownership of the property. As mentioned earlier, Hert and Redrum took dozens of pairs of socks and hid to avoid paying for them and hence validating the fact that they concealed merchandise to deprive the owner.
The first suspect should also be charged with robbery. According to GA Code § 16-8-40, a person commits robbery if he/she takes property from another person or in the presence of another individual with the objective of stealing it (“2017 Georgia Code”, 2017). Hert committed this offense as he took merchandise from the Socks for Feet Outlet in the presence of a security officer and without the consent of the owner. In light of the circumstances surrounding the events of the case, it is evident that Hert’s intent was to steal the merchandise. The second suspect contravened the retail property fencing and related matter code when he distributed the pairs of socks that he unlawfully obtained from the Socks for Feet store.
However, the third suspect was liable for one different charge as compared to her partners. She committed the offense of theft by receiving stolen property as per GA Code § 16-8-7 (2017). Under the “2017 Georgia Code” one commits this offense if they receive, dispose or retain a stolen property. As evident in the witness statements, Breeze allowed the second suspect to put merchandise in her purse; an event indicating that she received stolen property willingly. By allowing the second suspect to conceal merchandise in her purse, the third suspect became an accomplice in shoplifting.
Based on the accounts mentioned above, the first and second suspects will get similar penalties for theft by taking and shoplifting. Under the criminal code, theft by taking is treated as a misdemeanor except when the property is worth more than $500 (GA Code § 16-8-2). Since both Redrum and Hert were charged individually, the property that each took was worth less than $500. Therefore, their crime falls under misdemeanor and hence attracts imprisonment of not less than one year but not exceeding ten years. For the crime of shoplifting, all the suspects will face imprisonment of not less than 30 days. Since the property they shoplifted is worth more than $300, each will be subject to a fine of not less than $250. More charges and penalties might arise in the course of the trial.
For the offense of robbery, the first suspect will be imprisoned for a period of not less than one year and not exceeding 20 years. The second suspect will be imprisoned for between one to ten years for the contravention of retail property fencing and related matters as stipulated under GA Code § 16-8-5.2 (2017). A similar penalty will be preferred against Breeze for her crime of receiving and retaining the stolen property.
Based on the nature of the crime, it is evident that the suspects were professionals. The events surrounding theft at the Socks for Feet store are indicative of the fact that the suspects had planned for the crime. For instance, they knew how to exit the store before being apprehended implying that they had planned before committing the crime. Also, the fact that the suspects did not stop committing the crime after they saw the security guards is suggestive of the possibility of them being professional thieves. As evident in witness statements, for instance, one of the suspects run over the security personnel causing him to fall. Based on the Document Library, the incidence reveals that the suspects were ready to do anything to get away with the crime which further supports the fact that they were professionals. As a result, combating the suspects requires that they be apprehended to deter them from committing other crimes.
The typology of the crime committed by the suspects is property crime. Property crime also falls under the sociological typologies as a broad category of criminal typology (Hart 409). Since the suspects intended to shoplift, their actions led to the loss of property implying that they committed a property crime. Their actions can also be classified as a form of violent crime since one of them caused physical harm on the security guard. However, based on their initial intentions, the suspects committed property crime. Therefore, all the charges against the suspects intend to serve justice for depriving the owner of the store of his merchandise.
In conclusion, the case of theft at Socks for Feet exposes the suspects to penalties that emanate from different crimes as per Georgia Criminal Code. As an attorney presiding over the case, I can recommend that the three suspects be charged with theft by taking, shoplifting and receiving stolen property. Since the actions of the three suspects differ, they will need to face personal and collective trial. However, for the common crime of theft of property, they will face imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than ten years. The fact that the suspects tried to escape from the crime scene after security guards challenged them indicates that they acted as professional criminals with the objective of stealing property from the store.
“2017 Georgia Code: Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses: Chapter 8 – Offenses Involving Theft.” Justia, https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2017/title-16/chapter-8/article-1/. Accessed 7 May 2019.
Hart, T. C. (2017). Using typologies of victimization worry to create strategies for reducing fear of crime. Police Practice and Research, 18(4), 407-419.