Hacker News Reader

This is mostly a function of policies that explicitly allow and tolerate this sort of behavior as a sort of “pay back” and “release valve” for the poor, addicts or generally speaking under represented social classes.

As the wage gap and opportunity gap widens in the US, allowing shoplifting is actually an intentional release valve that is being tolerated and even outright legally permitted (California Prop 47), because - without it - we would see more home break-ins, kidnappings of wealthy people and more severe offenses. Instead, shoplifting is relatively harmless and prevents this type of escalation of crime.

“Panem et circenses” said the Romans, shoplifting is a form of “panem”. I think many don’t understand the incredible pressure pot that is the US at the moment with vast negative social pressures and inequality. If it explodes, all bets are off: the US could look a lot like South Africa and Brazil than what it is now.

This plus some political survivorship too: votes are all equal, and when most people are disadvantaged or about to become disadvantaged, politicians cater more and more to them (populism) in order to survive and dominate in the political arena.

> As the wage gap and opportunity gap widens in the US, allowing shoplifting is actually an intentional release valve that is being tolerated and even outright legally permitted (California Prop 47), because - without it - we would see more home break-ins, kidnappings of wealthy people and more severe offenses. Instead, shoplifting is relatively harmless and prevents this type of escalation of crime.

What a wild theory. I've seen no evidence of this mechanism existing.

I lived in slums and he's not wrong. You have no idea how some people have been left behind by society. And you expect them to care about the community?

What you are saying is literally insane.

I find Prop 47 is insane, and I find lack of law enforcement insane, but to each its own.

This is an idiotic rationalization even if it is true that this is the motivation behind allowing ransacking to go unchecked. You're essentially funding the creation and expansion of criminal gangs. Training up a whole generation of people to become looters with little fear of the law. Take this a few steps further, the article mentions that retailers have begun keeping product off the shelves or even completely shutting down outlets in problem areas. What happens when this becomes general policy and there are no more easy targets to loot? Do you think that every person who has grown accustom to this lifestyle and has forgone legal work in favor of this more profitable option is just going to look around and say "oh well, it was good while it lasted. Guess I'll go get a job at McDonald's and be a law abiding citizen", fuck no, they're going to look for other targets but now they have possibly years of experience and contacts with other criminals allowing them to go after other options that they wouldn't have considered before.

This isn't hyperbole, just look at what happens in other countries that lack the ability to enforce their laws.

> This isn't hyperbole, just look at what happens in other countries that lack the ability to enforce their laws.

Well, given that we seem to lack the ability to enforce our laws, what do we have to look forward to?

I have no idea how a prosecutor can take down these organized rings. The entire method prosecutors use for say exotic drugs, guns, etc: "Ok we have you for 5 years here, who do you work for, make these phone calls, we can get your sentence down to parole". This allows prosecutors to work their way up. But if a prosecutor is sitting in front of a low level shop lifter - who gets out that day - i don't see any prosecutor leverage.

Conspiracy charges? Airtags in their shoes?

>and it will largely be a government policy failure.

You mean feature.

If you tell voters in no uncertain terms what will happen if they piss on the electric fence and they piss on it then it's safe to assume they wanted the results. Make no mistake, people were told certain policy would lead to businesses leaving these areas resulting in <thing> deserts. Voters voted for it anyway.

I’d be fine with this as long as people then don’t decry the eventual <thing> deserts as discriminatory.

If this only harmed the people who voted for it, then I'd have no problem with it. The problem is that it's also harming all of the people who voted for the opposite but lost.

I don’t know of any states that have made it near impossible to prosecute shoplifters. What are you referring to?

Having the penalty be a slap on the wrist and having the person is released same day, it’s essentially the same as not prosecuting them. NY state bail reforms, and in San Fran; “ In 2014, a ballot referendum passed that downgraded the theft of property less than $950 in value from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.”

That’s not the same claim at all - those people can and are being prosecuted: bail wouldn’t matter if they weren’t! Similarly, changing the threshold for a felony theft charge doesn’t prevent anyone from being prosecuted.

Stores aren't calling the police and if they do the police don't show up.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-09/skelton-...

Maybe don't take someone running for Attorney General who wants you to know crime is out of control unless you elect them at their word alone.

That’s the claim made by someone running for office on a tough on crime platform, so I’d want a more objective source and especially comparisons to other cities.

For example, one other explanation is that police have gone on a soft-strike trying to reduce popular support for anti-police brutality laws. If that were the case, the focus should instead be on disciplinary measures for the officers who aren’t answering calls.

The big thing we’d really want would be comparisons with other cities. We hear a lot about NYC and LA both because they’re large but also because they are synonymous with liberal in right-wing media, where billions of dollars annually are spent promoting that narrative. One of the first questions should be comparing rates to less popularly-mentioned cities, especially in states where sentencing thresholds haven’t changed.

> having the person is released same day, it’s essentially the same as not prosecuting them

No, it's called not imprisoning someone who isn't an imminent threat for weeks or months without a trial while they're waiting for one.

Reform the court system to get to trial faster if you want a change, in the meantime cash bail is an affront to everyone's rights.

What is the real liability to apprehend when someone is attempting to steal a large amount of merch?

You delegate and subdivide. I get a gang together and each person steals $50 at a time, no more; if they get caught they get let go or it’s very minor.

You collect the materials and farm them off to Amazon.