Comment by inferiorhuman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by inferiorhuman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Prop 47 is a ridiculous red herring. It raised the threshold for felony [whatever] to $950. To my knowledge that threshold hadn't changed in my lifetime, which is to say that the intent of the original statutes was that there should be a significant barrier to a felony charge. Meanwhile a misdemeanor can be punished by up to 364 days in jail. However police are generally unwilling to enforce misdemeanor statutes.

A couple weeks ago one of my cars was vandalized (hood was etched). The last time I talked to a body shop about getting a hood repainted I was told to expect to pay at least $600-$800. I'd expect by now the total cost will be over a grand. For all of the whining about Prop 47 (not from you specifically), do you really think the vandal was cognizant of the threshold for felony vandalism? Do you really think that they were trying to create just under $950 worth of damage? I sure don't. Hell, I don't even think that person deserves to spend in excess of a year in jail over this.

Prop 47 only encourages crime because we've moved into "police won't enforce the laws on the books" territory.

Not enough information about your vandal to speculate on his or her motives but there are reports of gangs of shoplifters raiding shops and taking less than $950 worth of goods each e.g. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/05/14/shoplifting-cal...

Oh it was one of my neighbors, not a gang. ~$800 was the quote for a car with cheaper paint. This car has metallic paint (more expensive and more difficult to respray well), I'd be very surprised if I could find a competent shop to fix it for less than a grand.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...

https://www.shouselaw.com/burglary.html#2.3

I'm not a lawyer so here's how I interpreted these lawyers:

Petty theft is up to six months in jail + up to $1,000 fine. Prop 47 added a misdemeanor shoplifting statute with a max. incarceration to one year. Previously this was considered burglary where a defendant could be charged with either a misdemeanor (up to a year in jail) or felony (up to three or so years).

The existing burglary statute (which otherwise covered what is now called shoplifting) carries a sentence of up to one year in jail (misdemeanor) or more (felony). The gangs taking less than $950 worth of goods are taking advantage of police apathy. So, sure, maybe Prop 47 resulted in an increase in shoplifting/burglary. However, if the police were to see these things through repeat criminals would still be subject to the same felony statue as before.

I am not a lawyer too but, from what I know, the police do not prosecute crimes. They bring their reports to a DA who decides to charge or not. And the DAs, being an elected official and seeing what is the public opinion of these crimes from the prop 47, do not want to charge them. And if the DAs are not going to charge these crimes anyways there is no point for the police to catch the criminals.

The police don't prosecute crimes, correct. As long as they're not making arrests it's not even a matter of what the DA or judge does.

And if the DAs are not going to charge these crimes anyways there is no point for the police to catch the criminals.

And there it is. There is absolutely a point in making misdemeanor arrests. Making misdemeanor arrests allows the rest of society to focus on the next step in the process.

So, in your opinion, the initiative comes from the police and DAs have not changed their charging based on prop 47?

Then, why did the police change their behavior in your opinion?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So for the police more "lenient" sentences for first time offenders is offensive. They want to crack skulls. If they can't then they don't care.

The SF POA, for instance, threw a ton of money around to defend capital punishment in California while the residents of San Francisco elected a DA (Kamala Harris) who campaigned on a platform of staunch opposition to capital punishment. It was a lot of the same crap with the three strikes law. Non-partisan analysis pointed out that the California statute was excessively punitive and expensive but police and prosecutors across the state came out swinging against proposed reform.

Same thing with the new DA (Boudin). One of his planks was focusing on gangs (a.k.a. organized crime) that are breaking into cars versus and focusing on getting addicts and homeless people into diversion/treatment programs. Of course there was plenty of outrage about how property crime was going to get even worse under Boudin's reign of apathy. Whatddya know, someone posted a video the other day of a break-in at an Embarcadero parking lot. Was it a junkie looking to score? No, it was a group of people in a car, wearing masks going about their task very methodically.

https://digital.modernluxury.com/publication/?i=360208&artic...

Not sure how is capital punishment and a car break in video related to shoplifting so I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police? They did not get to crack skulls before. From their POV nothing has changed at all - they arrest, book, and put the suspect in jail either it's a misdemeanor or a class A felony. No skull cracking happens at all.

The only difference I can see is that making arrests which do not end with charges will show up as the police harassing the citizenry in the statistics so the police, rightfully, avoids making those. The link I posted quotes a police officer saying as much: While misdemeanors, in theory, can bring up to a year in county jail, Fresno Police Sgt. Mark Hudson said it’s not worth it to issue a citation or arrest a suspect who would likely be immediately released because of overcrowding.

Capital punishment is an example of police demanding to use violent tactics.

I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police?

Their egos got bruised.

They did not get to crack skulls before

If you mean literally, sure they did. If you mean metaphorically then again sure they did. They're literally throwing a tantrum because things that could've been charged as a misdemeanor or felony (at the discretion of the DA) can now only be charged as a felony for a repeat offense. Note that a lot of the anti-Prop 47 rhetoric misses this. Theft of $950 can still be charged as a felony under a variety of circumstances (including the case of simply being a repeat offender).

While misdemeanors, in theory, can bring up to a year in county jail, Fresno Police Sgt. Mark Hudson said it’s not worth it to issue a citation or arrest a suspect who would likely be immediately released because of overcrowding.

So what? Jails and prisons across the state are overcrowded. The state is exporting prisoners to counties and other states. The overcrowding is a not so subtle hint that simply locking people up is not a solution. Prop 47 doesn't change this dynamic, if anything it would reduce the overcrowding (which is a good thing except for those who would like to see petty theft carry a life sentence).

Okay, I see your point. Police is throwing a tantrum but you are not denying that the criminals are not punished any more.

It's not just prop 47 or the cops. The new DA just refused to prosecute a murder.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/SF-District-Attorn...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com