It wasn't a violent or particularly noteworthy crime but for the brazenness with which it was carried out, and that didn't sit well with Chico's police chief, Mike O'Brien.The police said it went like this. A man, 43-year-old William Emis, walked into the Liquor Bank convenience store last month in downtown Chico, allegedly grabbed a $2 beer and, while he was walking out of the store, told the clerk to call the cops on him because he wasn't paying for the booze.
* * *
During the encounter, Emis was incredulous that police would take the time to transport him to the county jail in Oroville. Emis, police said, believed, not without reason, that he would be cited and released on the spot because his alleged theft was a misdemeanor offense.
* * *
Law enforcement officials and prosecutors say multiple factors have changed the way people suspected or convicted of misdemeanor crimes -- such as petty theft and vandalism -- are supervised and punished, leading to cases in which some offenders know there will be little consequence for habitually committing petty crimes.
O'Brien said the "three-headed monster" comprising Assembly Bill 109 (prison realignment), Proposition 47 (reclassification of certain offenses from felonies to misdemeanors) and Proposition 57 (additional parole opportunities) have undermined community safety and impacted property crime.
<< Filling USCA and USDC Vacancies | Main | Maybe "anything goes" isn't such a great idea after all >>
Options scarce to deter habitual petty criminals, law enforcement officials say
Andre Byik has this article with the above title in the Chico (CA) Enterprise-Record.
Maybe law enforcement should stop trying to arrest and deter petty criminals and only focus on felonies and violent crimes.
Effectively legalize theft, as long as it's under $950?
That's actually pretty close to what we have in California now. If you think that's a good thing, have you thought it all the way through?
I'm just saying maybe police and prosecutor agencies would better spend their time ignoring smaller offenses and go after more serious offenders - some prosecutors are now saying they won't prosecute small offenses if they are elected. Jail beds are not infinite and maybe police should think twice before putting a person who stole a $2 beer in an expensive jail cell.
Yes, I know that is what you are "just saying." Simply repeating the simplistic position tends to reinforce my doubts about whether you have thought it through.
There is an old saying among economists that the difference between a good economist and a bad one is that the bad one only considers direct effects while the good one also considers indirect effects. That is also true in many other fields, including the study of crime.
The serious, detrimental effects of seemingly minor crimes were described many years ago by Wilson and Kelling in their famous article now known as "Broken Windows." (Nowadays at any mention of Broken Windows I must hasten to add that I am talking about the real article and the real theory, not the distortion of what "Broken Windows" means that is widely floating around today.)
Back to the actual case, I would not put someone in jail for a single offense of petty theft, but for a repeater who believes he can steal with impunity something has to be done. If you have another idea, I am certainly open to suggestions, but letting him go on like this should not even be considered an option.