A brand new set of laws targeting crimes which have created a “sense of social anxiety” amongst Californians reflect support for tougher sentences after a decade of loosening penalties. But experts say they don’t signal a return to “tough crime.” Politics of past many years.
RELATED: Prop. 36: What to expect immediately from California's recent crime law
The laws, which come into effect on New Year's Day, will crack down on property crime, retail theft and other crimes. Some will allow prosecutors to impose recent sentencing enhancements for certain varieties of retail theft or expand laws that expand the definition of organized retail theft that was previously slated to be eliminated. Others are introducing recent regulations geared toward curbing online sales of stolen goods or attempts to return stolen goods to stores for a fee.
Experts say the laws passed in 2024 represent a slight shift from a recent give attention to reducing incarceration but is not going to push California back to its tougher policies of the Nineteen Eighties. Rather, they are saying the changes reflect popular support for harsher punishments.
“We were going through a period of reform in which the state was sort of moving away from decades of commitment to intensive incarceration,” said Jonathan Simon, a criminal justice professor at UC Berkeley Law. “It is not clear whether what we are experiencing is the end of this reform period.”
In August, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 10 of those bills — lots of which were written in collaboration with major retailers — and said Californians' concerns about organized retail theft were “front and center.”
“Public opinion has changed,” said Garrick Percival, a political science professor at San Jose State. “Although I think it's important not to read too much into the change, because I think there's still a lot of evidence that the public supports rehabilitation programs and is not in favor of expanding some kind of mass incarceration, as the state has been doing since.” practiced for a few years. It’s sort of a corrective.”
Simon said many recent laws are “redrawing the line” on existing offenses, which have recently been linked to a brand new “sense of social anxiety”. He added that most of the laws would initially apply to “a relatively limited number of cases.”
Many retail theft laws give attention to prosecuting these crimes, including recent sentencing provisions for lighting fires to facilitate retail theft (SB 1242, introduced by State Senator Dave Min) and sentencing enhancements for returning, exchanging or selling stolen goods (SB 1416 , introduced by State Senator Josh Newman) and for retail theft of greater than $50,000 (AB 1960, introduced by Representative Robert). Rivas).
The consequences of the brand new laws would rely upon whether law enforcement officials make more arrests based on the laws and the way often prosecutors charge crimes, Percival said.
Prosecutors “still have a lot of discretion in charging criminals,” he said. “I think the most likely outcome is that these (laws) will be applied differently depending on what county you are in.”
AB 1779, introduced by Rep. Jacqui Irwin, allows prosecutors to consolidate theft charges from different counties into one case, provided each county's district attorney agrees. Another recent law, AB 1802, indefinitely extends the crime of organized retail theft, which previously had an expiration date of early 2026. The same bill also expands a California Highway Patrol task force dedicated to analyzing organized retail theft and vehicle theft.
Another law, AB 1972, allows for the expansion of the CHP Property Crimes Task Force to also analyze railroad and freight theft.
Legislation introduced by State Senator Nancy Skinner (SB 1144) requires online marketplaces to ascertain policies prohibiting the sale of stolen goods and to notify California law enforcement of anyone believed to be attempting to sell stolen goods to California residents sell.
Other laws give attention to enforcement to scale back retail theft.
AB 2943, introduced by Reps. Rick Chavez Zbur and Robert Rivas, would allow police to make shoplifting arrests and not using a warrant if the officers didn’t witness the crime, so long as they’ll provide probable cause. It also expands the definition of what constitutes “related acts” to fulfill the edge at which someone will be charged with grand theft.
Because officers can now make arrests based on a witness's testimony, the change “will almost certainly increase the potential number of people arrested,” Simon said.
Percival explained that the length of the sentence was not the largest deterrent factor, but quite the “likelihood of being caught in the act.” This implies that laws to expand police enforcement could potentially help reduce the number of individuals attempting retail theft.
Higher penalties for some crimes could even have an “indirect effect” on police behavior when making arrests in the event that they knew someone was more prone to be charged with against the law, he said. Then “they may be more willing to make an arrest, whereas before they may not have done so.”
Another law, AB 3209, allows courts to issue orders prohibiting people convicted of theft or vandalism of a retail store or of assaulting a retail worker from returning to the retail store and face punishment for violations of that order Prison sentence of as much as six months.
Beyond retail theft, other criminal laws also give attention to vehicles. A brand new law introduced by State Senator Scott Wiener eliminates the so-called “door lock,” which makes it against the law to force entry right into a vehicle with the intent to commit theft.
“It’s a little early to know what impact it will have, not just on the number of arrests but on crime overall,” Percival said.
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com