Fine-tuning state’s theft laws is in order

It’s been nine years since voters approved Proposition 47, which turned some non-violent felonies — including retail thefts valued as less than $950 — into misdemeanors. The goal was to push roll back some of the state’s tough-on-crime policies. We generally support the measure given the legitimate concern about locking up too many people for low-level crimes.

That law and other criminal-justice reforms have come under fire in recent years, as the state has witnessed a significant hike in shoplifting as well as smash-and-grab robberies. Crime rates have generally increased (although murder rates have fallen after a two-year rise), but the public is understandably concerned about these basic safety issues.

Because of the Legislature’s progressive tilt, however, there’s been too little effort to analyze the results of past lawmaking. This week, however, the Assembly’s new Select Committee on Retail Theft held a public hearing, featuring law-enforcement officials and criminal-justice reformers. Last week, California’s official watchdog agency, the Little Hoover Commission, also held hearings.

This is a complex matter that we’ll delve into deeply, but we’re heartened that the issue is finally getting a nuanced look beyond the typical sloganeering from left (no more mass incarceration!) and right (lock ‘em up!). For example, many of the high-profile thefts are gang-related and already are punishable under the state’s felony laws and have nothing to do with Proposition 47.

But there’s nothing wrong with adjusting even the best-intentioned laws. During the Little Hoover Commission confab, for instance, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper said his deputies used state funds to patrol stores and made 285 theft arrests in seven days, with 65% of those arrested having a violent history. He’s no doubt correct that many thefts simply go unreported. But what to do about that on a broader scale is up for legitimate debate.

Politico reported that the issue is driving a “possible return to tough-on-crime policies.” One such anti-crime initiative already is in the works. As we analyze the evidence, we would simply caution the state to tread carefully.

Let’s start with fine tuning rather than a mad pendulum swing in the other direction.