Uncomplicated

Consider the following, found (like a lot of things I find, really) on LinkedIn:

This doesn't even qualify as a simple solution to a complex problem. Rather, it's simplistic. It makes a raft of assumptions, but notes none of them. For instance, who is "we?" Society as a whole? No-one asked me if retailers should be locking up merchandise. Not that locking up relatively portable, relatively high-value merchandise is anything new. And if the "we" refers to the people making the decision to put in locked cabinets at department stores or grocers, that's a "we" that lacks the authority to lock up suspected shoplifters. And of "we" refers to the criminal justice system... well, that's a whole other can of worms, but suffice it to say that they don't control both sides of the equation, either.

But even with that aside, the idea that the United States, as a society, can incarcerate its way out of the problem of retail theft is pretty preposterous on its face.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, picking pockets was among 220 capital crimes in England. Thousands were executed before the attending masses. Undeterred by the fate of their colleagues, pickpockets routinely worked the crowds at public hangings (Gatrell, 1994, 62).
The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging

If the executions of pickpockets was considered fertile ground for picking pockets, it seems unlikely that the potential for going to jail would eliminate the problem of retail theft. Law enforcement is a poor tool for attempting to force people to bear poverty with stoicism and equanimity, given the fact that even wealthy people have been known to steal when it suits their purposes.

But more importantly, being punitive does nothing to alter the perception of an opportunity gap, which is what's really at work here. Sure, there are going to be people who steal out of desire to injure others, or simply for enjoyment of the act, rather than an actual need, or the idea it's the best means available to them to better their material circumstances. A realistic threat of incarceration may deter those people. And it may deter some of the others, as well. But it's unlikely to be an effective deterrent for most, if for no other reason than most people don't expect to (and likely won't) be caught. Locking up people who steal merchandise from retailers isn't as simple as having a squad of police officers standing outside every Target or Kroger store and marching anyone the staff points to, and who can't provide some proof of purchase, off to jail. If that were a realistic plan, it would already have been enacted somewhere. And without an overwhelming police response, the chances of being arrested and prosecuted are fairly low.

Not to say that there's no place for better law enforcement in all of this. But the law enforcement system in the United States is simply not set up to solve this problem, for all that it looks to some like the easy way out.