Is there an article I can read to understand the reasoning behind not booking anyone for non-violent crime? I'm looking to understand the nuances of the issue instead of taking a political side.
The pandemic closed and limited a lot of civic services, including courts, to where there was no room/time to process everything. This meant things had to be prioritized and usually it is violent crime that takes precedence. Things that boil down to non-violent he said, she said situations aren't worth the time in that situation. Before looking deeper into this topic, I think that needs to be understood. It's not as much a political policy with sides as it is a response to a pandemic.
Because they're not a threat to society, have not been determined to be guilty, and throwing people in jail (only to bond out anyway a couple days later, in most cases - funneling more money to bondsmen) is a great way to (a) spread a pandemic and (b) waste money giving them what they want (shelter, food, healthcare, etc.)?
A dude swiping some snacks from Target I can understand, but people that break into private residences are definitely a threat to society. It is easy for that to escalate into a violent encounter and it makes people feel legitimately unsafe living in the city.
A lot of people have gotten soft on petty (and misdemeanor) non violent crimes and assume everyone is a criminal with a heart of gold "just trying to make it out there". I have been very poor before and living out of my car, I never stole one thing or broke into and squatted in any houses. If I had I would not have soiled the place up and taken stuff on my way out. I was raised with better morals than that. If I were a Californian I would be tired of the excuses the far left come up with to excuse petty crimes and lawlessness. I think it will come full circle in the next few years though as the crooks get bolder with the breakins and flash mob robberies.