It's not just California anymore. Mayors of several major US cities have announced that, during the pandemic, they will no longer prosecute minor offenses, including shoplifting, subway turnstile jumping, graffiti, and drug possession. Several have also released low-level criminals back onto the streets.

The idea is to try and keep the jails coronavirus-free by limiting the incoming population. Couldn't they simply isolate the newbies for 14 days? Apparently, the cities' jails have no facilities for doing that at the level at which they expect petty criminals to be arriving under a full-enforcement regime.

The good news is that with everyone staying home, porch piracy seems to have declined. I'm no longer being inundated on social media with ads about how a Ring doorbell stopped this or that criminal.

Other public officials are eager to apply a similarly effective approach to other crimes, including violent felonies and hate crimes. From US News on 3/2/2020: "The San Francisco district attorney's office said Monday it is withdrawing charges and pursuing a 'restorative justice' model against a 20-year-old man arrested in the robbery of an elderly Asian man in his 70s... Dwayne Grayson, 20, was booked last week on suspicion of robbery, elder abuse, a hate crime charge and probation violation following the Feb. 22 incident... District Attorney Chesa Boudin campaigned heavily last year on a progressive criminal justice platform that included restorative justice, which relies on reconciliation with victims over punishment of offenders."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2020-03-02/second-man-arrested-in-robbery-of-elderly-san-francisco-man

From Wikipedia: Restorative justice is an approach to justice in which one of the responses to a crime is to organize a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the wider community. The goal is for them to share their experience of what happened, to discuss who was harmed by the crime and how, and to create a consensus for what the offender can do to repair the harm from the offense. This may include a payment of money given from the offender to the victim, apologies and other amends, and other actions to compensate those affected and to prevent the offender from causing future harm. For victims, its goal is to give them an active role in the process and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness." There's that word "feelings" that progressives like so well.

The "Restorative Justice" approach to criminal behavior was incorporated into the policies of high schools throughout the country after Arnie Duncan was appointed Secretary of Education in 2009, with the goal of ending the "school to prison pipeline" by not arresting students who committed crimes, including felonies. Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School was one of the first to incorporate this approach into its policies and was considered a model for the nation's schools. Nikolas Cruz was a frequent beneficiary of those policies. Without them, under the old policies, he would have had criminal and mental health records that would have prevented him from buying the gun he committed mass murder with.

Most of us aren't dummies; we just don't hear about these outrages, or when they happen, we don't know whom to blame. How about posting a list of the lawmakers who voted for this change, so we can help disemploy them in this year's election?

we don't know whom to blame

You can start with George Soros. He's buying up as many elected prosecutors as he can fund. Chesa Boudin is one such beneficiary. So is Kim Foxx out of Chicago, famous for the kid glove treatment of Jussie Smollet.

If law enforcement isn't going to deal with "petty" theft, ordinary citizens need to be given the power to do so. What that would require, I leave as an exercise to the reader.

> ordinary citizens need to
> be given the power to do so

Perhaps in the United States as nowhere else on that planet, ordinary citizens know that inevitably, power is taken and not given. They'll have read about it.

Mayors of several major US cities have announced that, during the pandemic, they will no longer prosecute minor offenses, including shoplifting, subway turnstile jumping, graffiti, and drug possession. Several have also released low-level criminals back onto the streets.

Something tells me that this will only benefit a small segment of the population. Those who instead of a fabulous tan get first degree burns are likely to be pummeled by the cops before being tossed into jail.

I fully support anyone who shoots such a thief. I realize that's a big no-no in california, but (if I lived there) I would shelter anyone sought for such an act. It would be equivalent to hiding Jews in the attic from roving SS troops.

Like it or not, that's what it will take to save civilization. Don't want to die for stealing "a little"?... don't steal.

I fully support anyone who shoots such a thief.

That will probably get you the death penalty. I suspect that if you utter a harsh word toward the miscreants the police will be very interested in talking to you, should someone complain to them.

Meanwhile, localized petty tyrants have taken it upon themselves to limit your right to purchase firearms, ammunition, and booze.

As Crid points out, power is taken. The tyrants should also do that same reading, to see if they can glean some knowledge. As the meme goes

Americans: they'll cross a frozen river. In the dead of night. On Christmas Eve. To kill you in your sleep.

"How about posting a list of the lawmakers who voted for this change"

Prop. 47 was passed by the voters of California, not by lawmakers who came up with it behind closed doors and stealthily passed it without voters knowing about it until it was the law. Anyone who bothered to read the voter pamphlet, which had arguments for and against the proposition, knew exactly what they were getting. Amy's right: it was the (majority of) dummies who vote. (And if you vote without reading the pamphlet, you're a double dummy.)

How about posting a list of the lawmakers who voted for this change...? ~ jdgalt1 at March 20, 2020 6:39 AM

Prop. 47 was passed by the voters of California, not by lawmakers.... ~ szoszolo at March 20, 2020 9:58 PM

California is no longer governed by lawmakers, but by courts. The legislators, in order to avoid going on record with votes and having those votes used against them, push all controversial legislation to plebiscites. If the proposition is passed by the voters, the opponents sue for a temporary restraining order while they arrange a lawsuit to have the measure declared unconstitutional. The courts then decide whether the new measure can become law, effectively governing the state.

Any measure that fails is resubmitted with slightly different wording until it passes and can be submitted to the courts.

No adjustments can be made to deal with the unintended consequences of a measure, so the measure either stands or someone proposes a plebiscite to repeal it.

Often times, conflicting measures are passed. One year, a measure was passed that invalidated another measure, which was also passed in the same election by the same voters.

It's a stupid way to govern a state, especially one as large as California.