You have surely seen the New York pol trying to justify why prosecuting those who steal things like soap and toothpaste is unfair. “If you’re stealing those things, you need them,” insisting that people could be jailed for having a “biological need.” said Assemblywoman Gallagher in the viral video. Some could interpret this to mean if you need something, it’s ok to steal it.
Well, we almost had a bill that would make penalties lighter for crooks to steal and vandalize here in California. It was known as AB2108-– and it would have made crimes like shoplifting eligible for ‘pretrial diversion’. It was mercifully (for taxpayers) killed in the legislature, but the bill would have made penalties for some of this kind of theft subject to diversion–making more offenders eligible to avoid prosecution, conviction and jail–and opponents point out, would have undermined the toughened penalties under Prop 36 as passed by California voters. The proposal would not have applied to defendants charged under Penal Code Section 666.1, Proposition 36’s repeat-theft felony provision. Some defendants with previous offenses, however, still could have qualified for diversion. This would have given judges more latitude to approve diversion.
The bill failed to pass out of the legislature after being held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file. The committee didn’t give a reason–financial considerations and pushback from organized opposition, may have played a role, but maybe they just came to their senses.
It is fair to ask, with homelessness and a general feeling that our streets are not safe, why lessening the punishment for crime–even misdemeanors–is even worth debating at this time.
