University Case Study: Act of Shoplifting and Evidence Analysis

This case study presents a scenario where a friend is accused of shoplifting during a busy pre-Christmas shopping weekend. The analysis focuses on assessing the evidence, including eyewitness testimony from a store detective, CCTV footage, and statements from a store assistant. The assessment employs key criteria such as reputation, ability to observe, vested interest, expertise, and neutrality or bias to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the relevance, selectivity, and significance of the evidence. The study considers the friend's explanation of unintentionally forgetting the item in her bag and the manager's subsequent actions, including reviewing CCTV footage and consulting with the store assistant. The conclusion is drawn based on the totality of the evidence, determining whether the friend is responsible for the shoplifting offense. The analysis highlights the importance of impartial assessment and the limitations of relying solely on eyewitness accounts, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence evaluation in determining guilt or innocence.

Running head: ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
The case study involves a certain question that the friend is responsible for shoplifting or
not. The question will be answered by following the key criteria that is Reputation, Ability to
Observe, Vested Interest, Expertise and Neutrality or Bias and finally the assessment of
evidences will be upon Relevance, Selectivity and Significance will be observed and the
eyewitnesses will be taken into consideration.
The first element which comes under the key aspect is Reputation. It is related to the past
record of the any individual (Wu, Balliet & Van Lange, 2016). Good reputation strengthen the
case and on the other hand bad reputation hamper the evidences to proof the case. In this case
study the facts are not showing your friend has any sort of records related to the shoplifting
(Hayes, Hogan & Emler, 2016). In fact her school friend Anna did not made any kind of
statement related to the nature of your friend so from these analysis it can be assumed that the
reputation of your friend was not bad for the shoplifting offence.
The second criteria to check is the ability to observe. This criteria is able to answer the
question about how much a person has seen the incident and relevant expertise to evaluate an
incident must be met (Borich, 2019). The case study showed that the store detective has seen the
incident and he had the expertise to look after the security of the store. There are two factors to
test the ability to see and those are firstly the Physical Dimensions and secondly the Perception
(Oatley, 2017). The physical dimension of a person is important to observe the offence when
committed. The location of the person from where he or she observed the offence, whether the
person is physically incapable or not and the obstruction to view all comes under the physical
dimension (Kleiman et al, 2017). In this case the store detective saw the incident in his own eyes
and he observed the situation that the lady put an item in her bag and went to the door without
paying it and based upon the eyewitness he addressed the matter to the store manager

2ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
(Wheatcroft & Keogan, 2017). The store detective was not under any disability with respect to
eyesight and the manager relied upon the detective for good work. Perception is known as the
ability of a person to understand the situation accurately and this ability requires a person’s
ability to provide judgement about a particular situation on the basis of the experience and
lacking of sufficient knowledge can lead to an eyewitness valueless (Valentine & Fitzgerald,
2016). The store detective was not under any such lack he had the right perception when the lady
put the vest in her bag and went towards the door without paying for it suspected the lady as a
shoplifter.
The third criteria is vested interest and as per this criteria there must be some motive
because it will gain in some way from the outcome (Springham, 2016). In the case study the lady
who alleged with the offence of shoplifting was working under the vested interest to tell the truth
because if the offence prove then it will cost to fine or there may be other complications which
may lead to police action against her. The lady found the danger about the consequences and she
apologized to the manager and the store detective and ensured that it was made out of mistake
and it was completely unintentional.
The fourth criteria is expertise to deal with a situation. The expertise includes various
criteria like relevant experience, relevant knowledge and relevant skills (Vernham & Nee, 2016).
The case study shows that the store detective has a expertise about the incident but the manager
before coming to a conclusion checked the CCTV footage to deeply investigate into the matter
(Gudjonsson & Haward 2016). The manager did not relied upon the words of the detective
blindly because sometimes the situations are different from what we saw. In order to understand
the situation after watching the footage manager confirmed it from the store assistant Paul.

3ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
The fifth criteria is neutrality or bias. The neutrality concept need to be supported by the
impartial assessment of a person to deal with a situation and selectivity should not be there in
their decision. Impartial assessment can be done by some categories of persons for example a
judge, a referee because these people are not involve in the situation and lack of fair assessment
can lead to harm their reputation. The case study shows that the store manager behaved in a
neutral manner because when the lady caught for shoplifting and store detective who was a
relative of the manager addressed the manager for the offence. After hearing the explanation
from the lady the manger saw the CCTV footage and found that the behavior of the lady was not
suspicious and to get assistance to resolve a problem the lady was talking to Paul. The manager
called Paul and got the confirmation that the lady was looking for assistance. The other condition
is bias and it occurs when the motive behind some evidence is to save the close one and it is
based on the prejudiced viewpoint. Anna who was a school friend of the lady gave evidence in
order to save the lady and if the store manager relied on the information given by Anna the
chances of bias had occurred. The point is clear in the case study that neutrality ruled instead of
bias (Akehurst et al, 2017).
The eyewitness given by the store detective had a strong effect on the case. Eyewitness
are considered as the most powerful evidence to deal with case. The case study shows that the
incident came to the notice of the manager by eyewitness of the store detective who saw the
incident and through the expertise explained to the manager. In this case though the eye witness
was important but it must not be relied upon to draw a conclusion because eye witness
sometimes lead to many drawbacks. An eyewitness only with perception are often take away
from the actual circumstances. This particular case must not be concluded with the eyewitness of

4ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
the store detector. The proper examination of the evidences are necessary to determine whether a
person telling a truth or not.
The creditability of evidences plays a great role in order to decide a case. The evidences
that are available in this particular case are three types. Firstly the eyewitness evidence given by
the store detector, the CCTV footage of the store and the evidence given by the store assistant
Paul. The evidence need to be checked by its relevance, significance and selective. The evidence
given by the store detective was an eyewitness and the store detective put an effort to identify
the offence and in order to stop the shoplifting addressed to the manager of the store. It was a
relevant evidence that as a store detective he observed the incident but it cannot be drawn to a
conclusion because the shop was overcrowded for the occasion of Christmas and there was
scarcity of wired baskets and other customers also putting small items into the handbags. The
alleged lady already explained about the act of unintentional behavior and apologized towards
the store manager and detective. The question arise to the manager whether the lady was telling
truth or not lead to check the CCTV footage. CCTV cameras are ultimate security or it can be
considered as the expert evidence and in this case it was relevant to take the help of the CCTV.
The cameras are meant to show the actual scenario without any colour. The footage showed that
the lady was not behaving like a shoplifter though it was observed that she was looking for help
from the shop assistance and it showed that the lady was talking to Paul. The CCTV footage
create a sense of innocence in the mind of shop manager for the lady. The manager here
examined the shop assistant Paul to come to a conclusion whether the lady is guilty for
shoplifting or not and Paul confirmed that the alleged lady was asking for a wired basket for
shopping. The store manager was selective to take the evidences (Hauch et al, 2017).

5ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded that your friend was not
responsible for the offence of Shoplifting. It was a weekend before the Christmas and the shops
were overcrowded. Your friend was not able to get a wired basket put the vest in a handbag and
your friend paid for the items she bought which were in the hand and forgot about the item in the
bag. Your friend apologized to the store for the mistake. The case study does not show any past
records of stealing. The store detective addressed the incident from a particular perspective but
the CCTV footage showed that your friend was not acting like a shoplifter. The footage showed
that your friend was asking for assistance from an employee named Paul. Shoplifters generally
does not talk to the employees of a store for assistance and the intention behind the wrongdoers
are only to hide the acts. The store manager, store detective and everyone related to the incident
understood that your friend was acting under a mistake and it should be treated in that way.

6ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
References
Akehurst, L., Easton, S., Fuller, E., Drane, G., Kuzmin, K., & Litchfield, S. (2017). An
evaluation of a new tool to aid judgements of credibility in the medico‐legal
setting. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(1), 22-46.
Borich, G. D. (2019). Educational Psychology A Contemporary Approach.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (2016). Forensic psychology: A guide to practice.
Routledge.
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Masip, J., & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (2017). Can credibility criteria
be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of criteria-based content
analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 819.
Hayes, T. L., Hogan, R., & Emler, N. (2016). The psychology of character, reputation, and
gossip. Questions of Character, 268.
Kleiman, E. M., Chiara, A. M., Liu, R. T., Jager-Hyman, S. G., Choi, J. Y., & Alloy, L.
B. (2017). Optimism and well-being: A prospective multi-method and multi-
dimensional examination of optimism as a resilience factor following the
occurrence of stressful life events. Cognition and Emotion, 31(2), 269-283.
Oatley, K. (2017). Perceptions and representations: The theoretical bases of brain
research and psychology. Routledge.
Springham, N. (2016). Description as social construction in UK art therapy
research. International Journal of Art Therapy, 21(3), 104-115.

7ACT OF SHOPLIFTING AND ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCES
Valentine, T., & Fitzgerald, R. J. (2016). Identifying the culprit: an international
perspective on the National Academy of Sciences report on eyewitness
identification evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 135-138.
Vernham, Z., & Nee, C. (2016). Dysfunctional expertise and its relationship with
dynamic risk factors in offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1-2), 47-67.
Wheatcroft, J. M., & Keogan, H. (2017). Impact of evidence type and judicial warning on
juror perceptions of global and specific witness evidence. The Journal of
psychology, 151(3), 247-267.
Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Reputation, gossip, and human
cooperation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(6), 350-364.