I don’t necessarily disagree with the DA’s policies but publishing it openly in public is a terrible idea. Why advertise in public the fact that thefts of under $750 are unlikely to get prosecuted now? it invites small-yield theft.
No, I didn’t miss the point. Of course it wouldn’t matter if they were rich or poor if they didn’t break the law. It isn’t a function of justice it is a function of being a law abiding member of society.
I’m going to go with “no”, “yes”, and “definitely”. Sounds like Dallas is well on its way to becoming the next Seattle. Good luck.
I think it would be naive to assume that this won’t affect police behavior. If they know that the people they arrest for certain crimes are going to be turned loose again without any punishment, they’re likely to stop arresting people for those crimes, and perhaps even investigating them. That’s one of the takeaways I had from the “Seattle is Dying” video. You could just watch the bit from 14:30 - 22:00.
“I just started stealing last Monday … I don’t feel like I’ll ever be arrested again … I have conquered the criminal justice system.” - homeless guy with 34 criminal cases in 4 years
Hey, some of us like Seattle. I certainly prefer it to Dallas.
It sounds a lot like the criminal justice reforms places like San Francisco and Seattle implemented. Expect petty theft, including breaking into automobiles, to skyrocket. Like it did in the preceding places mentioned. I don’t think you’re right about not being prosecuted, de jure—offenders IIRC receive a citation and a summons to appear in court—but de facto, it’s not a deterrent to those crimes. I guess you can pick them up for FTA later. Good luck.
It’s a horrible idea. Looks like we get to relearn all of the criminal justice lessons from the 1970s all over again.
EDIT: I’d no shit move over this, Bump. I don’t think things will get better, and it’s unlikely you can get more rational representation in the C.J. system. Too bad, Craig Watkins was great for the city in the D.A. slot. Doubt he’d have pushed for this.
You’re not including the periodic warrant amnesties, or deals that happen. You can get a lot of those failure to appears, or driving w/o financial responsibility tickets cleared off in one fell swoop. Basically encourages people to play keep away more than they already do.
As for the lack of prosecution for theft you mention, it really makes it hard to discourage vigilantism against suspected thieves. Though I suspect the C.J. system will actually prosecute in those cases.
Glad my inlaws moved from Dallas.
I read the letter in full. I was wrong. It’s not like San Francisco’s. It’s worse.
To totally decline prosecution for theft under 750 unless the theft was for economic gain—good luck proving that by the way—is absolutely insane. You’ve essentially decriminalized theft, not just made it really convenient to do
Did you all know you were electing a leader of the proletariat when you guys voted him in?
Gray Ghost, they don’t have to “prove” it was for economic gain. The prosecutors office is choosing, using their discretion, to not prosecute certain thefts. They don’t have to prove to anyone but themselves that a particular theft met or didn’t meet their guidelines.
In Texas, deadly force is justified to prevent robbery. I think that there is a very good chance that if store owners know that the prosecutor won’t bring a charge, we will see this go up.
And yes, I know that robbery = theft PLUS bodily harm/threat of bodily harm, but it’s pretty easy for me to claim that the guy stealing from me threatened me if he’s dead.
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.31. Self-Defense
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
© was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
Police behavior, and, as mentioned, the behavior of the public as well. Shoplifter steals $200 worth of stuff. Shopkeeper catches him and calls the cops. Cops arrest him. DA declines to prosecute and lets him go with a warning or something. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually either the cops or the shopkeeper is going to figure out that nothing much is going to be done. Sooner or later, the tendency is going to be “well, if you aren’t going to do anything to protect my interests, I will” and they set up a neighborhood watch.
I hear George Zimmerman is available.
Regards,
Shodan
The way the law reads, criminal trespass isn’t for bums just hanging around, but rather for people who are on private property univited, AND who have been asked to leave or otherwise notified that they’re not welcome - signs count.
Here’s the main part of the statute, minus all the definitions, exceptions and penalties.
So basically if there’s a skanky homeless guy somewhere, and they’re notified in some fashion that they’re not welcome, the cops have the option to arrest them for criminal trespass.
Now, with this refusal to prosecute, what legal basis do the cops have to detain the guy or even forcibly remove him if he’s not being otherwise disruptive except for his very presence? Seems to me that this will result in cops engineering offenses for the same purpose- lots of failure to obey a police officer I suspect.
No… it was more a reaction to two things- the batshit insanity of the Republican party as of late, and the resignation of the batshit insane Republican DA and her unelected successor (appointed by the Governor).
My personal expectation is that this will piss enough people off in the state government and Legislature, which is still in session, may well outlaw that kind of thing before it gets off the ground.
The police will have the same legal basis to arrest people that they’ve always had. Prosecutorial discretion doesn’t change the law. The fact that very few people get pulled over for going 5 mph over the limit doesn’t mean that it’s legal to go 5 over. But it makes sense to me for police to focus on the cars going 25 over, or the ones going 5 over, plus driving recklessly. (Here, police discretion used by analogy.)
Prosecutorial discretion is a decision aabout how the DA chooses to expend resources. I would be interested to know where this DA intends to focus the resources saved by this policy.
Agreed, most people don’t steal stuff because it’s wrong.
Also, another poster pointed out it’s for necessities, so let’s continue with those two constraints, here are some things I would expect t be in the necessities category:
food/water
medicine
clothes
(could probably put utilities in here also, but we’ll leave them out)
Also, let’s speculate that 95% percent of people don’t steal because it’s wrong. I personally think the number is much lower, but for purposes of this thought experiment we’ll keep the number high. So the 5% of people (or whatever the percent is) that have a different moral compass than the average joe are allowed to steal items that are necessities under $750. I can see one result: increased theft.
In what way does that “work”?
If the goal is to make sure people that are in need get their basic necessities, doesn’t it make more sense to provide them using some alternate method so you don’t open the floodgates for the people that would abuse it?
I think it’s this:
Whether or not an ADA brings the complaint to a grand jury 2 months later doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not a cop can arrest someone for trespass.
His reelection bid?
Isn’t the whole point of arresting someone so that they can be charged with a crime and prosecuted? Cops can’t go around arresting people for violating laws that don’t exist, and in large part, if the DA decides they’re not going to prosecute a crime, that law ceases to exist.
I mean, if I was a cop, I think that would discourage me something fierce, if the DA basically said that even if you do arrest someone for it, they’re not going to follow through and prosecute them. So why arrest them in the first place in that situation? You’re taking a non-trivial risk that the person is going to react violently and hurt you or your colleagues, or that they have some disease, etc… And for what? So that you can haul them in, and they’ll be let go somewhere else because the DA won’t prosecute them.
And I seriously, seriously doubt that criminal trespass cases go to a grand jury. It’s only a mid-level misdemeanor with a fine up to $2000 and/or up to 180 days in jail.
The point is that rather than putting these skanky homeless guys in jail for 30 days, then putting them back out on the street as-is, they should be directed to a program that helps them not be skanky homeless guys stinking up the local McDonalds.
What programs are you referring to? What’s their success rate?