but in this case it doesn't make sense. I could understand returning the packages HE was supposed to deliver, but picking up another package already sitting on a porch sounds stupid: don't they have a way to check that this package was never his to deliver?
I think we're reading too much into the words/actions of a petty criminal. I imagine he's lying and was just stealing packages, or at the very least hadn't thought things through properly.
> Seems like a poorly designed incentive on Amazon's part is enough to establish reasonable doubt.
Yes, but a mere claim by the accused that the policy exists with no supporting evidence of the policy is not the same thing as “a poorly designed incentive on Amazon's part”.
If it's true, it does seem like a bit of a loophole.
Perhaps returning too many of his own packages raises a red flag. Or perhaps it's $x per delivery and $y per return, and returning his own packages would eat into his $x.
I mean, I'm sure amazon have a check in place to stop you just picking up your packages in the morning, returning them in the evening, and picking up $y*packages. That's a little bit too obvious.
But it does seem returning packages that weren't yours should be noticed. Perhaps not impossible (red tape shouldn't get in the way of someone doing the right thing), but at least flagged (this has to look as fishy as it sounds).
- policy exists for drivers own packages or is poorly checked so that other packages can be returned for the $$ even though they are not that drivers
- thief is using loophole/lack of oversight in policy possibly along with feigned ignorance to make this excuse to make the theft seem like an accident
