3 ms·

Just because something is a misdemeanor doesn't mean nothing happens. If you are convicted with a misdemeanor you still cam get a fine, community service, proba

Just because something is a misdemeanor doesn't mean nothing happens. If you are convicted with a misdemeanor you still cam get a fine, community service, probation (and violating parole IS a felony), and even a jail sentence of up to 12 months. For theft of less than $1000 that sounds like a perfectly reasonable punishment. I don't know why police aren't responding to these calls, but it's not because those committing these crimes aren't going to face a (reasonable) punishment.

manfredo 8y ago
In San Francisco at least, it really does mean nothing happens. There have been instances of stabbings (non-lethal) and the perpetrator was spotted in public days later.
- wahern 8y ago
  The vast majority of those incidents involve the homeless, though, even though they're not all reported that way. There's a ton of issues to unpack there so I won't even bother trying, but nonetheless it's a distinction that matters at least in terms of understanding what's happening and why.
wahern 8y ago
That's the root of the problem. The police and prosecutors simply aren't interested in misdemeanors, despite the fact that the penalties can be quite severe. I think because for decades so many crimes were potential felonies that police and prosecutors used the misdemeanor/felony dividing line to systemize the allocation of resources--prosecute felonies, ignore misdemeanors. Most of these felonies were ultimately prosecuted as misdemeanors through plea arrangements, which shows another aspect of the system: heavy potential penalties made it easier to secure pleas, which reinforced reliance on felonies to filter prosecutions. Now that penalties are actually fair, police and prosecutors need to change their habits. But they haven't, despite the fact that they'll openly admit they won't prosecute the exact same crimes they once did. It's perverse and there's no excuse for it. Felonies may have made it easier to secure plea deals, but misdemeanors are easier to prosecute from a technical perspective[1] and because of the lower penalty easier to secure plea deals closer to the maximum sentence. It's an open question whether they're cheap enough, but nobody has yet even bothered to suggest it's not practical, let alone prove it or show that there aren't measures we could take to streamline enforcement. [1] More safeguards in place to ensure fair trial when felonies are involved. Compare traffic court, where indigent aren't even guaranteed counsel. Indeed, counsel for indigent defendants is only required by the Federal constitution for potential sentences of 6 months or longer. First offense shoplifting kids could theoretically be swiftly prosecuted in the blink of an eye (especially given camera evidence), though in some states that may require changes in the law as defendant protections were often fashioned in the context of insane penalties for common offenses.

manfredo 8y ago

In San Francisco at least, it really does mean nothing happens. There have been instances of stabbings (non-lethal) and the perpetrator was spotted in public days later.

wahern 8y ago
The vast majority of those incidents involve the homeless, though, even though they're not all reported that way. There's a ton of issues to unpack there so I won't even bother trying, but nonetheless it's a distinction that matters at least in terms of understanding what's happening and why.

wahern 8y ago

That's the root of the problem. The police and prosecutors simply aren't interested in misdemeanors, despite the fact that the penalties can be quite severe. I think because for decades so many crimes were potential felonies that police and prosecutors used the misdemeanor/felony dividing line to systemize the allocation of resources--prosecute felonies, ignore misdemeanors. Most of these felonies were ultimately prosecuted as misdemeanors through plea arrangements, which shows another aspect of the system: heavy potential penalties made it easier to secure pleas, which reinforced reliance on felonies to filter prosecutions. Now that penalties are actually fair, police and prosecutors need to change their habits. But they haven't, despite the fact that they'll openly admit they won't prosecute the exact same crimes they once did. It's perverse and there's no excuse for it. Felonies may have made it easier to secure plea deals, but misdemeanors are easier to prosecute from a technical perspective[1] and because of the lower penalty easier to secure plea deals closer to the maximum sentence. It's an open question whether they're cheap enough, but nobody has yet even bothered to suggest it's not practical, let alone prove it or show that there aren't measures we could take to streamline enforcement. [1] More safeguards in place to ensure fair trial when felonies are involved. Compare traffic court, where indigent aren't even guaranteed counsel. Indeed, counsel for indigent defendants is only required by the Federal constitution for potential sentences of 6 months or longer. First offense shoplifting kids could theoretically be swiftly prosecuted in the blink of an eye (especially given camera evidence), though in some states that may require changes in the law as defendant protections were often fashioned in the context of insane penalties for common offenses.