It clearly is true. I can actually watch it happen. You can too, if you go to arraignments in NYC. The line ADAs have no discretion to dismiss petit larceny (shoplifting) at arraignment. They need supervisor approval. There are other cases like driving under suspension (VTL 511 -- mentioned in GP) where they do have this discretion. There is a reason for the difference, which is that petit larceny is a priority.
Also, the DAs supported the "harm over harm" amendment to bail reform (CPL 510.10(4)t) for the explicit purpose of seeking bail in repeat shoplifting cases. And can you guess how they're using it?
You are conflating DA public statements with actual operational policy. It is nothing new that DAs claim to prioritize things that are not on their roadmaps.
So on the one side I see news reports of dozens of cases of serial shoplifting offenders out on the streets, and the NYC DA informing his staff and letting the public know that if you steal less than $500 you will not go to jail.
But you're claiming that the DA actually intended to send them to jail. So he was baiting them to commit the crime? I don't buy it.
And you're claiming that his prosecutors have no discretion in prosecuting these cases? I don't buy it, but if you have some references to support that claim, other than word of mouth, I'm all ears.
I can't find precisely what the amendment was and when it took effect, but the subject of the article was a surge in retail theft over several years, so if you're talking about some changes in the past year, then maybe we will be able to see some effects in the next year.
I am speaking of the perspective of having seen about 200 cases of this type in the last few years (this is a moderately low sample size among practitioners) in the place in question and from having discussed the issue with colleagues who have more experience than that over longer time periods in the same place.
You are free to disregard my "word of mouth" claim in favor of an elected prosecutor's press releases and true crime sensational stories in one of the country's most infamous tabloids. I just wanted to put some ink on the statement that what I described is "clearly not true."
You are only seeing the cases that make it to the courthouse, right? How many shoplifting events are ignored, missed, or otherwise let off before things make it that far? OK, there is no discretion on the cases they allow into court but there is a hell of a lot of discretion before things get to that point.
This is correct in the sense that the police have the ability to "let someone off with a warning," or loss prevention/the cashier can look the other way, but my statement applies to any case where someone gets a ticket or is arrested. That's where the ratchet starts to tighten.
In the case of habitual, high-volume retail theft like in the article, people seem to be eventually arrested at a pretty fast clip, though it's obviously impossible to know the rate.
I regret the "clearly not true" wording. I wasn't reading your original comment as closely as I should have.
But now I'm not clear exactly what you are claiming. Of the 200 cases you've seen, how many were petit larceny cases that resulted in jail time? How much jail time?
Every source I can find indicates that the government can reduce charges or dismiss, and that in any event, jail time is unlikely.
"A petit larceny charge “would get a desk appearance ticket and fall under Bragg’s ‘no prosecution memo,’” said Joseph Giacalone, a John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor and ex-NYPD sergeant..."
https://nypost.com/2022/01/08/alvin-bragg-underplayed-shopli...
> how many were petit larceny cases that resulted in jail time? How much jail time?
I don't think I've seen anyone get a jail sentence for a shoplifting petit larceny in New York. However, people commonly serve jail time before sentencing in these cases. There are two major causes: arrests and bail.
The DA statement in the article you cite says that people should be issued a summons for shoplifting rather than be arrested. It is true that this should happen, but a lot of police don't seem to agree with it and they have the power to arrest. I have seen more petit larcenies in DATs than under arrest at arraignment, but it's actually a pretty close call. People who are arrested can spend a few days in jail until they are arraigned.
At arraignment, the person will be released unless bail is set. Bail cannot be set in most misdemeanors in NY after bail reform. However regarding shoplifting, the legislature has passed the "harm over harm" carve out (referenced earlier) to allow a prosecutor to ask for bail if someone is, among other things, repeatedly accused of shoplifting. Having bail set in a misdemeanor like this is a big deal because a lot of people will serve more jail time waiting for a plea offer than would have been the sentence.
Regarding discretion to dismiss, this is a nuanced issue. Line prosecutors, unlike police, have astonishingly little autonomy. More specifically there is usually freedom to be more punitive but not less punitive. There are instances where discretion is pre-delegated and the prosecutor in arraignments can dismiss a case if they see a reason this would be a good idea, but this is extremely rare. What I was saying above is that petit larceny is not such a crime. Of course there are other ways to dismiss cases later in the process, but those require more work and are available to fewer people.
Anyway my original point, which I will stick to, was that shoplifting is not deprioritized or unprosecuted by the NYC DAs. They treat it as seriously as anything, and to my mind more seriously than they should.
Aren't most shoplifters not even caught? Police don't investigate because the city won't prosecute. And shops won't report because police won't investigate.
Maybe what you say is true about arraignments. But that assumes that someone has been reported, investigated, and caught.
Maybe? I would tend to believe that but it seems impossible to know. I think companies tend to argue something like shrinkage == theft and theft > arrests, but that's pretty suspect since there are many other ways that inventory goes missing.
As to your other point, I think it's a myth that people lose faith in governmental administration and fail to report crime in this context. Maybe that happens with things like sexual violence, but not here where property owners have every economic reason to report theft without considering police availability or effectiveness.
I agree that police don't investigate crime like this (in cities), but in the corporate context they don't need to. This field is dominated by private investigation and security. People are detained with dubious legality by the "loss prevention" employee until police show up, then the store hands over 4k video of the person stuffing baby formula in their pants and walking out of the store.
It can both true that those shoplifters getting caught are punished to the full extent of the law and that it is hard to catch 50/50 people who were in a shop for 30 seconds and arrest them for shoplifting. So hard in fact that if the police are not physically there before it is happening there is likely zero chance to catch anyone in these groups.
Also, the DAs supported the "harm over harm" amendment to bail reform (CPL 510.10(4)t) for the explicit purpose of seeking bail in repeat shoplifting cases. And can you guess how they're using it?
You are conflating DA public statements with actual operational policy. It is nothing new that DAs claim to prioritize things that are not on their roadmaps.