Not true. First, attaching penalties to the theft will reduce the pool of willing thieves. Second, under threat of prosecution, the thieves can turn on their handlers and cooperate with investigators. But when the law states that there are no consequences for theft, there is also no incentive to do this.
You say this, but Prohibition and the Drug War both provide direct counter-evidence to that statement.
There is always someone desperate enough to be on the bottom rungs of criminal organizations.
You reduce organized crime by taking out the leaders.
Whether someone chooses the path of crime out of desperation depends on one's culture.
If the crime organization has an hierarchy then it might be easier to take out the leaders.
You take out the leaders by arresting the weakest link and working up.
You may enjoy watching The Wire. Aside from being maybe the best tv show ever, they go deeply how to take out organized crime (and the societal issues driving crime).
What law, in what jurisdiction, states this?
> Under current state law, shoplifting merchandise valued under $950 is considered a misdemeanor and often not investigated.
The law classifies it as a misdemeanor. Police aren’t investigating and prosecutors aren’t prosecuting.
So it’s an issue of enforcing law vs technically having a law.
Cities can individually choose to change this and deter shoplifting by prosecuting this as misdemeanors can still have up to a year in jail.
[0] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/shoplifting-san-fr...
And this isn't exactly the same thing as the law saying there are no consequences, which is what the parent poster was claiming.
Not when the other option is starving.
Has the rate of starving skyrocketed in the past few years.
I want to understand your logic as it seems strange to think that starvation has anything to do with these thefts at all.