Many have equated looting with theft, this is an imprecise analogy. Looting is more akin to rioting and loss of civil control.
One must understand the difference between scavenging during a crisis and looting. Generally, if starving and thirsty, one can be forgiven for scavenging food and necessities.
However, looting shoes, teevees, dvds, and perty clothes, completly different issue. Looting imperils lives, and loosens the social fabric. And finallly, looting has a severely negitive impact on already impoverished areas.
First, those who do it with impunity once, or talk about it afterward, embolden the next generation of looters. Who will, instead of evacuate, stay around for the lawlessness that pervades after a diasater like this one. This not only puts the waiting looters in danger, but also endangers, unecessarily those charged with finding and saving them. Moreover, as we see here, the sight of the looters pressures police and gaurd forces to stop it, which takes vital resources from search and rescue. It also means that store owners may be more likely to take a go-down-with-the-ship mentality and not evacuate themselves to at least gaurd their inventories (see above issue with staying behind)--good example Korean grocers during the King riots.
Second, looting loosens the social fabric. My guess is that the Nola looting will be painted, very quickly, as a poor v. rich, black v. white, phenomenon. This simply will engender more animosity between race and class, in an area already rich with such animosities. One good example is the Korean grocers in LA during the King riots. The rich will distrust the poor even more, and the whites will distrust the blacks even more. This is not only a symptom of the problem, but the cause--a vicious cycle. Moreover, letting looters do their deeds with impunity reinforces the mee first attitude that pervades this country. When the looters get "home" with their take, how many do you think chastize them for their callousness? Few I suspect. Instead they count their Nikes and teevees. Ironic given that they will probably lose that stuff in the ensuing floods that are bound to get worse as valuable resources are diverted to stem thier behavior.
Lastly, looting simply exacerbates the cycle of poverty even further. If your business was looted, and destroyed, would you: a) build in the same place again; b) move away; or c) build in the same place again and try to recoup losses by charging outrageously high price? I suspect answers a and c are appealing to the shop owners. Moreover, the warehouses in that area are likely to move as well--removing much needed jobs from the area. We will also see an increase in insurance premiums in those areas to react to looting--raising the cost of business and prices. Ever been to south-central LA?
The answer? Well several historic examples point to shooting looters on sight. See Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories (AMGOT) during WWII. However, the public will probably not palate shooting looters, with the response: "are shoes worth lives?" Couched in those terms shooting becomes distasteful. However, is shooting worth saving our social fabric, freeing up necessary resources to save other lives, and giving a disincentive for future looters, ensuring the fabric of society and possibly ending a cycle of poverty? Maybe. I realise the shooting may have the oppiste effect--and further engender animosity amongst the races and classes. Perhaps the answer is non-lethal area effect weapons. I distrust normal police tactics for looters in general. Thoughts?
