>>(“Studies show that prosecution of the offenses driving the bulk of misdemeanor cases have minimal, or even negative, long-term impacts on public safety.”) >

>>(“Studies show that prosecution of the offenses driving the bulk of misdemeanor cases have minimal, or even negative, long-term impacts on public safety.”) >...with no sources provided. In the original directive, "the offenses" in this quoted sentence refers to a basket of crimes including "unlicensed driving, sex work, drug possession, drinking in public, and trespassing" -- it does not mention theft explicitly: https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-07.pdf https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE... Considering that it is questionable whether sex work, drug possession, and drinking in public should even be criminalized at all, this seems like a fallacy of composition. >>Even though, according to LAPD data, property crime is down. >That's not really as slam dunk as it suggests. If the government openly states that they're not going to bother prosecuting minor property crime, it seems reasonable that a fair chunk of the victims will be dissuaded from reporting the crime, driving property crime statistics down. Special Directive 20-07 went into effect on December 8, about six weeks ago. I'd be surprised if there are even reliable data available, especially since the on/off lockdowns act as a large confounder.