| >>I don't think anyone anywhere has completely stopped prosecuting shoplifting. San Francisco where functionally anything under $900 is not prosecuted. That is the big one NYC has also had its fair share of this. >>When we can't talk about what's really going on without exagerating It is not really exaggerating, I am not talking about individual cases where an Assistant DA looks at a case in their professional review of choose not to prosecute because of some actual legal reason, or because of some deal or something else I am talking about wide scale refusal at an entire district level to refuse entire classes of cases https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-dist... https://www.theblaze.com/news/dallas-da-wont-prosecute-crime... https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto... |
My first google suggests that shoplifting prosecutions in San Francisco were reduced but not eliminated, and that "organized retail theft" prosecutions (which I see people complaining about on HN a lot) were actually not diminished at all.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/data-shows-chesa-boudin-...
I don't understand how you can claim it was not an exageration to say:
"[declare] entire segments of the criminal code void by saying they will not peruse any cases for violations of those acts. Shoplifting is one such law they often ignore"
Was I wrong to read that thinking it meant you were claiming there were zero prosecutions of shoplifting? That's not what those words mean? What "segment of the criminal code" did you mean specifically had been "void", what am I misunderstanding?
No criminal acts have ever been universally prosecuted and punished, ever.
But ok, correcting my reading of your statement, I now understand that your argumentis in fact that the "#1 action" of "reformers" (by which you mean elected district attorney's only, not other kinds of reformers), has been to reduce prosecutions for shoplifting (I'm not sure what a DA can "reform" except what gets prosecuted how!), and that you think that reducing prosecutions for shoplifting will necessarily lead to unaccountable private security.
That's really what you think we should have understood your original statement as? It sounds a lot less apocalyptic or sweeping of a theory this way. But ok, that's what you're saying. OK, cool, interesting theory...