CRIMES, whether violent or non-violent, should always be of concern to individuals in any society. A crime is any act defined as unlawful in the community within which it is committed. The fact is that any act committed by an individual or individuals that is unlawful should be a matter of concern to the community or society within which it is committed. 

Societies make laws to prevent or encourage a particular type of behaviour and to protect individuals and groups from suffering injury and/or loss, or injuring others. While it is easy to understand why some laws are made, and one may see clearly the harm that could derive from flaunting some laws, others are not so clear.
Unprovoked acts of violence against individuals or groups, whether to their person or property in any society, is universally accepted as a crime. Other acts may not be so clearly defined and will continue to be questioned by lawmakers and practitioners for some time to come. Often laws are enacted to make it a crime to hide, support or encourage someone in the commission of a criminal act.
In some professions, there is a duty to warn an individual of impending harm if you have been so informed and believe that the threat is eminent. And individuals or groups may take whatever action that is considered legally reasonable to protect themselves, and or their property, from damage or loss. It is incomprehensible to condemn any individual for taking the necessary legal action to prevent loss or damage, and if they are unable to protect themselves or property, they will be expected to take whatever action necessary to recover or prosecute those who are responsible.
A crime against an individual in a community does more than just damage to that individual; it harms the entire community. It threatens the stability of that community as all feel vulnerable to the act, and if appropriate action is not taken against the perpetrator, it enrages the community as it feels betrayed by those whose responsibility it is to protect them.
The likelihood of a community rising up against those responsible for maintaining law and order is always in the minds of those in authority. There is always the pressure to ensure that not only is justice done, but it must have appeared to be done. When societies and individuals who hold themselves as leaders begin to decide against whom it is acceptable for persons to commit criminal acts, the society is bordering on anarchy.
A few years ago a woman who was trying to justify a criminal act committed against a certain business entity stated that, that entity would not miss the money stolen, as it was a multimillion dollar company and it was “just a few hundred thousand dollars they get.” I have always remember that conversation whenever hearing about a robbery and wondered if the robber was schooled at the feet of someone with a similar philosophy.
More recently, my attention was drawn to a Freddy Kissoon article in the Monday (December 22, 2014) edition of the Kaieteur News where he trivialized the arrest of a teenager who was caught shoplifting during the Christmas shopping season. His reasoning seems to suggest that the items stolen were inexpensive and resulted from the state of poverty in the country, therefore it should be no big deal. What about the loss suffered by the store owner? Is he not entitled to be made right for the loss that he would have suffered had he not invested to provide for the systems that caused the perpetrator to be caught? Or is one expected to accept that he can afford to suffer losses.
The cost for whatever system is implemented by businesses to prevent loss due to persons with that sort of thinking is borne by the rest of the law abiding persons in the community. Further, if individuals feel justified to steal a few “inexpensive items” from a store at age 15, the likelihood of them graduating to more expensive items is greater. The question of what is expensive and inexpensive is also relative. If daily stores were to suffer the loss of inexpensive items, it can amount to quite an expense.
In the United States, one of the more developed countries, it is said that losses to businesses from shoplifting (shrinkage) amount to about $15B annually, with businesses that fail to implement anti-shoplifting strategies reporting the majority of the losses. We, the law abiding citizens, cover the cost for this through higher prices paid for the goods so that stores can protect their merchandise.
How can an individual who claim to be an intellect be so shallow as to encourage, or at least uphold, behaviour that has the potential to lead to further poverty and criminality? Criminal acts of any sort or magnitude should not be condoned; doing so only leads to further acts that have the potential to become violent and place the entire society at risk.

(By Raymond Cummings)