3 ms·

That is false. California changed the amount of damage required for some convictions because prisons were exploding. Shoplifting is still illegal. Celebratin

That is false. California changed the amount of damage required for some convictions because prisons were exploding. Shoplifting is still illegal. Celebrating criminals getting away with crimes does not make you superior.

umvi 5y ago
I mean... I remember reading a story about a guy in CA that brought a calculator to a store to make sure he didn't shoplift more than $950 or whatever the Prop 47 limit was. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeOj_McJ:www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/+ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO... "There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."
- m0llusk 5y ago
  But you are ignoring everything that matters here. The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state. The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require? Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.

umvi 5y ago

I mean... I remember reading a story about a guy in CA that brought a calculator to a store to make sure he didn't shoplift more than $950 or whatever the Prop 47 limit was. See: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeOj_McJ:www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/+ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:R-TCCeO... "There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more."

m0llusk 5y ago
But you are ignoring everything that matters here. The $950 amount defines how the crime is handled. Because less than that is a lesser crime it tends not to even be enforced, but that does not mean that it cannot be enforced or will not be enforced. Much of the problem there has to do with exactly what happens when police but a case before the state. The fundamental problem that prisons were exploding with a population that simply could not be contained and cared for does not go away because enforcing retail theft is difficult. You seem to be proposing the idea that the way to fix this is to enforce shoplifting crimes aggressively, but how will you pay for and manage the additional prisons that will require? Instead of pretending the problem is simple we need to continue to find ways to make the justice system actually work. Part of that is to make it clearer what may happen if police arrest someone. Now they tend to be let free which has as much to do with prosecutor options and decisions as the law itself. It is clear we need to do better, but it is also quite clear that simply complaining about dysfunction does not fix anything and can imply bills that are too large to pay.