I guess the problem as I see it is that as a public service, they’re sort of bound to do stuff that may not be profitable or financially sensible, but are for the public good. Law enforcement, fire fighting and criminal prosecution all fall under this umbrella- I’m sure that some huge percentage of fires cost more to put out than they caused in damage, but nobody’s advocating that the fire department only come put out fires above a certain size.
This policy seems like it’s basically a license for poor people to go try and rob Wal-Mart blind for necessities, whether or not they’re actually in a position to NEED to steal for those necessities.
Look at it this way- if you’re a person of questionable morals suffering tight times, and you need laundry detergent, are you going to spend $16 of the cash you have to buy it, or will you go try and lift a bottle from somewhere, knowing that there will be no consequences even if you are caught? I suspect unless you’re particularly honorable, you’ll just go steal your detergent.
It seems to me that a better approach would have been to have made a guideline to be applied in a case-by-case basis- something along the lines of “We’re not in the business of prosecuting people who are stealing just to get by.”, rather than publishing it in such a prominent fashion with a specific dollar amount.
It strikes me very much as some kind of political virtue signaling. And the funny part is that I’m not at all against the bail reform or the weed-related stuff. That stuff makes sense, but this theft and criminal trespass stuff seem very much like political grandstanding to me, and in a way that might be detrimental to the county. I mean, he as much as says so in the first sentences of the section on criminal trespass- paraphrasing, he says that we shouldn’t be jailing the homeless, and that the county won’t be prosecuting these, and that the homeless are someone else’s problem.
I’m actually pretty sure your’re wrong about the fires - but maybe that’s because I wasn’t clear enough. Whether you agree with these policies or not, the thinking behind them is to look at all of the costs - not just the cost to the victim of the stolen items, but also the cost to society of arrest/prosecution/incarceration , the cost of that person losing their job over an arrest and going on welfare , all of those things. Just like the cost-benefit analysis of putting out a small fire includes not only the little bit of damage actually caused but also the potential for it to spread and cause more damages and injury and possibly death.
I agree that the guidelines should have been more general , which would have made it clear that determinations would be made on a case by case basis.
I disagree. Prosecutorial discretion should be on a case by case basis and not by a blanket policy.
The people vote for legislators to make policy and for prosecutors to enforce it. As nice as it sounds to give someone a break for stealing a needed pack of baby formula for their starving child, the public has already voted to allocate tax dollars to buy poor women baby formula. The public has allocated money for food stamps, clothing vouchers, and other programs to provide necessities.
The idea that we need to, in effect, decriminalize theft of small amounts of “necessities” ignores the fact that we already provide them and it makes these shop owners foot the bill for it, and as others have noted, resort to violence when there cannot be justice in the courts.
Agreed, but it is still a separation of powers issue, and the only way the system works is to have respect for the other branches. Both the legislative and the executive have shown absolute deference to the judicial branch, for example.
If the people of Texas do not want the theft of goods under $750 (defined as necessities) to be criminally punished, then that is something properly left to the Legislature and not an individual prosecutor. Further, it is something that even a person on the losing side in Dallas has a right to be protected against. A shopkeeper in Dallas has as much right to have his property protected in TX as a shopkeeper in another county in TX. Counties are not separate sovereigns.
When you use bright lines in your “discretion” chances are that you are not really using discretion but abusing it. I could understand a prosecutor looking at two cases of theft, looking at the individuals and the facts of the case, and deciding to seek a minimal sentence for one and a maximum for another. But to have two cases and say that the first person stole things valued at $740 and the second things valued at $760 and treat them differently, that seems arbitrary and capricious to me if done solely for exceeding his decreed limit.
I actually read an article in the Dallas Observer (the local alternative paper) about this subject. The author contends that Creuzot’s guidelines are based on “dense research”, but doesn’t go on to cite that research. And the Observer is admittedly biased- it’s got a definite progressive/liberal slant.
That said, I’m not against the idea of research-based policies, but everything I’ve read goes back to the idea that we should put the person who steals for necessities ahead of the need to have effective anti-stealing laws. I’m not sure which is the right way to go- is it better to screw one poor person over in the prevention of a dozen petty thefts, or is it better to have those petty thefts, and have the shopowners eat that cost, if it lets one person have their necessities and not get jailed for it? I’m kind of torn here- neither one is a good outcome in my book.
To me the most obvious answer would be to allow the shopkeepers to bill the county for losses. Why should they bear the burden of a societal problem? Contrary to popular belief, owning a business is not a license to print money.
Well, how much does it cost to lock someone up for a nite, get them to post bail, the prosecute them? A LOT more than $750.
And so you prosecute a homeless person- how are they gonna pay the fines? Or are you just gonna fill up the jails with people and give them free room and board?
I think he’s gone way to far. If you steal a stick a gum you should go to jail and get a nice little criminal record. Maybe that will teach you not to steal gum in the future.
Dallas has apparently decided to elect someone that doesn’t want to do his job: prosecute criminals. Did they realize that they were in effect passing a law that you can go into the store and take whatever you want for free as long as its under $750 and you don’t need a license to drive?
But again, what are these necessities that poor people need to steal? Don’t the taxpayers provide a social safety net? Everyone is talking like we are in a Charles Dickens novel with a poor thief who is stealing bread to feed his family. Use the EBT card.
QFT. As a small business owner I know the full extent of how the government thinks that it can just keep imposing taxes and requirements because it absolves itself of having to do it and the rest of the public thinks that business owners are all Bill Gates that can afford it.
That isn’t the right analysis or else everyone could commit crimes up to the cost of a night in jail and the cost of prosecution.
The idea is not that we prosecute crimes so that we can recoup the economic cost associated with them. Many crimes have no economic component. The idea is to prosecute these crimes to deter future crimes so that we don’t have a thousand more just like it.
For people too poor to pay fines, community service is an option.
Depending on who you are and where you are, maybe, maybe not. An EBT card that only has food-stamp dollars on it cannot be used to buy diapers, no matter how badly you need the diapers.
The amount of money available to prosecute, however, is not unlimited. If the system is spending vast sums to prosecute every possible crime, something somewhere is being shorted to pay for it. That something might be oversight to prevent abuses, it might be more vigorous prosecution of more serious offenses, it might be something else, but it is SOMETHING. In Dallas’s case, the DA is making explicit what choices are being made and what is being shorted; in many other offices, that information is not readily accessible to the public, but you can bet that the local defense counsel, the local police, and probably the local criminals know.
No, it’s not some magic option for everybody. I worked in a community organization that was a recipient of “community service” hours; we stopped participating a long time ago because we weren’t interested in having a whole lot of extra expense dumped on us. The time/money spent in training, supervising, and doing paperwork on these folks was substantially higher than the value of what they contributed (considered in aggregate–some individual workers were fine, some were valuable, and a huge percentage were deadweight). The notion that the system can get rid of the problem of unaffordable fines by simply dumping people onto community organizations to “work it off” is ridiculous.
I disagree on the many crimes have no economic component. I’d say all theft has an economic component. Crimes of violence against people also do. Crimes against property likewise. Littering costs society to pick it up. Even jaywalking if I have to stop my car for you cost me gas. I’m sure there may be some crimes that don’t have an economic component but I really don’t believe many crimes don’t have an economic component.
If an employee tries to physically stop a shoplifter, the employee is the one who is guilty of assault. If the shoplifter resists, it’s self defense. Remember Trayvon Martin? Only law enforcement should be stopping criminals not vigilantes.
I’m not in favor of not prosecuting any crimes under a certain amount or not prosecuting trespass cases. That isn’t a “Democrat” position that I’m aware of and if it was, I’d be fighting it.
To me, the disparity is the difference in prosecution and sentencing. A poor person can be railroaded through the system and be given a stiff sentence because they lack money for their defense and it is easy for some asshole to make himself appear ‘tough on crime’ by making an example of someone who can’t defend themselves. Unfortunately, a rich person can commit the same crime and either not be prosecuted or negotiate a slap on the wrist because they CAN afford to mount a defense and the prosecutor has to look at his budget. Or in the case of a celebrity, sign a couple of autographs, take some pictures with the star-struck judge or prosecutor and have the charges dropped.
Steal $20 at gunpoint, get 20 years in jail. Steal hundreds of thousands through creative bookkeeping or stealing from your clients and you get days in jail, community service or a brief probation. The difference between those is a huge injustice.
Actually, same with security guards. Whatever they may personally think, they’re NOT police and they cannot touch you or forcibly detain you. If they do, sue the ever loving fuck out of them and the company that employs them. That is, if you can afford to do so.
The employee can stand in their way, and even use some force.
And in general, Police never arrest a shoplifter as he is leaving the store with merchandise. she shopkeeper does and detains until the police arrive:
*Shopkeepers Privilege refers to a common law privilege given to shopkeepers whereby they can detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time. This can be done only if the shopkeeper has reason to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.
In order to avail the privilege, the proprietor or agent must ensure that:
The investigation is conducted near or on the premises; the detention itself should be effected either on the store premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof.
The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained engaged in shoplifting.
Only reasonable, nondeadly force is used to effect the detention. Such force being justified when the suspect is in immediate flight or violently resists detention.
The detention lasts only for a short period of time necessary to make a reasonable investigation of the facts
In cases where a shopkeeper fails to satisfy the aforementioned requisite conditions, s/he loses the privilege and may be held liable. Likewise if the shopkeeper exceeds the bounds of this privilege and makes an arrest, the lawfulness of his/her action will be determined by the jurisdiction’s rules governing arrest by a private citizen.*