Evaluation of Utah’s .05 BAC Per Se Law

Is it me or do others notice too that increasing the penalty or lowering the threshold for the crime only works for a crime like Driving While Intoxicated for preventing people from driving drunk? It doesn’t work for drugs, or theft, or shoplifting but it works for DWI. Interesting. Lower the criteria for DWI thereby more people will be violating the law and it makes more people stop breaking the law. Enforce DWI laws and more people stop drinking and driving.

In the news shoplifting is rampant yet lawmakers and prosecutors want to raise the criteria for committing shoplifting and they don’t what to prosecute shoplifting after a person is arrested. Yet the argument is that shoplifting will go down?

Why does it work in just the opposite way for DWI? In most cases DWI is the same level of crime as shoplifting and they carry the same punishment for prison. DWI has powerful lobbying groups – anti-shoplifting doesn’t. DWI carries substantial state penalties in the form of thousands of dollars in fines, shoplifting doesn’t. DWI carries substantial penalties for car insurance – not shoplifting. For DWI you need an attorney, you don’t need an attorney for shoplifting especially if its your first one. Bottom line DWI costs about $9,000.00 in fines, insurance, attorney fees, shoplifting $0.00 and in some states they don’t even want to persecute shoplifting.

The crime of DWI was made more severe in an attempt to lower the number of people committing DWI and fatal crashes. The crime of shoplifting Is being treated less harshly so people stop stealing. Does this make sense?

Why don’t government treat DWI like shoplifting? Then there would probably be NO DWIs at all!!!

Legislative Review. This indicated the motivation for lowering the BAC law from .08 to .05 was a desire to improve traffic safety. The majority of objections were based on hypothesized negative effects on the economy (e.g., alcohol sales, tax revenues, and tourism), the belief arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) would increase drastically for people who had “one or two drinks,” and the assumption there would be no safety benefits.

The report can be accessed HERE

Smash & Grab Retail

When police busted a shoplifting ring operating out of a liquor store last spring, they calculated that the dozen or so people involved had swiped at least $375,000 worth of goods from retailers such as Walmart, Lowe’s, and Walgreens. The pair heading the ring relied on small-time thieves, including several with drug arrest records, to launch brazen “grab-and-go” operations in which they snatched expensive goods and then raced out of stores and fled in cars with phony license plates. Though police and prosecutors often categorize shoplifting as a nonviolent crime, the gang’s sprees resulted in several physical confrontations, including one in which a gang member assaulted a store employee with a stun gun. This may sound similar to the organized smash-and-grab lootings that have plagued high-end retailers in San Francisco and other Northern California communities recently, but this gang was operating out of Daytona Beach, Florida—and had done so for nearly two years.
— Read on www.city-journal.org/smash-and-grab-retail

Thoughts on New York’s Manhattan’s District Attorney’s Day One Memo

Alvin Bragg the Manhattan DA is not the first DA to make a policy manifesto on how their office will run. His is one of the most resent. Bragg is part of a Progressive Prosecutor movement that is moving through some of the most crime ridden cities. Manhattan joins Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Seattle, and Los Angeles with their progressive movement.

District Attorneys are supposed to be the leading “Law Enforcement Official” in their County. That would put them in the Executive Branch of government. Prosecutors enforce the law they don’t interpret the law and they don’t create the law. If Prosecutors want to change the law there is a process for doing so, it isn’t by improperly charging crimes that are robbery (with a weapon) as simple petit larceny. As a Prosecutor if you don’t like the fact that when someone robs another person by displaying a gun (§ 160.10(2b)) and can get sentenced up to 15 years in jail. It’s not the Prosecutors choice to establish the penalty for the crime, the legislators did that. Again there is a process to change the severity of the penalty through petitioning the legislator, it is not by artificially improperly charging a serious felony robbery to a petit larceny.

For the record petit larceny is a theft of $1 to under $1000 and is a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 1 year in jail. This compared to a robbery where a the offender brought a gun to aid in the completion of the robbery with a threat of harm if you don’t give up the money. Crazy.

Mare sure to check out DA Bragg’s Police Memo there is much more than what was covered here so far.
See DA Bragg’s Police Memo HERE

Concerns with DA Bragg’s Policy Memo

The Commissioner of NYPD has issue with the policies of the Manhattan DA.

The Union for NYPD also see issue with the DA’s policy. See HERE

Here is a link to the New York Constitution and the role and function of District Attorneys in New York – access it HERE

2 Articles from the Manhattan Institute

Looking Beyond Day One

Three steps to minimize the impact of the new Manhattan DA’s soft-on-crime policies.

How Much Leniency with Criminals Can We Afford?

Progressive prosecutors claim that a soft-on-crime approach will make us safer, but the evidence tells a different story.

Why Violent Crime Is Rising – Michael Shellenberger

Aariel Maynor (left), suspected killer of Jacqueline Avant (right) with husband Clarence Clarence and Jacqueline Avant may not be household names but they are giants of black American music and philanthropy. Clarence is the former chairman of Motown Records, and responsible for the careers of some of America’s greatest African American musicians including Bill Withers, Babyface, and Terry Lewis. Jacqueline, 81, was president of Neighbors for Watts, an early child care advocacy organization, and a much-loved Beverly Hills philanthropist. Netflix last year produced a film about Clarence, the “
— Read on michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-violent-crime-is-rising

Recent retail crime wave shakes the industry | Security Info Watch

This is an interesting article about ORC (Organized Retail Crime). This topic doesn’t get the attention it deserves because it much of OEC thefts focus on the retailer or law enforcement.

The focus should be on the OFFENDER. In Kindergarten we knew it is not right to steal. There is no excuse for the offender’s behavior. They have to be held accountable. Once offenders are held accountable and fear punishment for theft they will stop. Not all but most.

Retail security expert says it is time to stop the blame game when it comes to battling organized retail crime
— Read on www.securityinfowatch.com/retail/article/21248616/recent-retail-crime-wave-shakes-the-industry


Data Driven Decision-Making

This is a very interesting website. I suggest taking time to look through the data. I have some suspicious with the explanation of the data and what data is available. There is noting positive about the Quality of Life in San Francisco. Homelessness and Crime is out of control. I took a quick look at the data and 2021 looks no different and even better (the filing rate) than pre-Boudin years.
I would like to know if defendants not held on bail are committing new crimes while there criminal cases are pending, because intuitively it looks like more are. What is the recidivism of those released? Some reports from California show recidivism low yet for probation about 60% commit a new crime or break the rules of probation and are sent back to prison.
One serious flaw is the understatement of harm in property crimes. People feel violated when someone breaks into their car rips open all the compartments spewing the contents on the floor of the car and taking everything of value. Its worse if the car is damaged to make entry or your college term paper was on your laptop that was stolen. The violation to your person increases when your garage or home is burglarized. Realistically chances of being burglarized is rare and the burglar returning is even rarer. Yet the fear people have when finding that their home was broken into, the contents of all their drawers and closets dumped on the floor. There private areas of their home occupied by a stranger rummaging their intimate possessions. Some people can’t go back into their home.
Yet Progressive Prosecutors want us to believe that these property crimes really are not a big deal and do not call for much in the form of punishment and certainly not prison. Below DA Boudin want to resolve ham – he is talking for the defendant. The Defendant caused the harm and now needs to be accountable for the penalty of prison.

Under the leadership of District Attorney Chesa Boudin, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office works tirelessly to restore victims, resolve harm, and break the cycle of crime. As gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, prosecutors have both a legal and ethical duty to ensure the system operates effectively and without bias to protect public safety.

SA STAT can be found here

FIU-Race and Prosecutorial Diversion- What we know and what can be done

Diversion is increasingly used by prosecutors in the United States. As an alternative to formal prosecution, diversion programs provide opportunities to avoid conviction, address substance use and mental health needs, and maintain employment and community ties. However, the diversion process can be a source of racial and ethnic disparities. Who gets diverted and who completes diversion successfully has a lot to do with income. Irrespective of skin color, poor individuals are disadvantaged for a variety of reasons, ranging from the quality of legal advice to hefty fees. While we acknowledge that diversion differences can stem from socioeconomic factors, this report focuses specifically on how race and ethnicity influence diversion decisions.

The full report is available here.

Targeted Fines and Fees Against Low-Income Communities of Color: Civil Rights and Constitutional Implications

The excessive imposition of fines and fees can damage judicial credibility and the relationships between law enforcement and residents. In the effort to raise revenue through fines and fees, municipalities in effect discount concerns about the judicial system’s role in our “country’s commitment to the principles of fundamental fairness and to ensuring that the scales of our legal system measure justice, not wealth.’” Chief among these concerns are the harms to due process and judicial ethics issues that arise when states depend too heavily on court fees, potentially conflicting with judicial independence, and diverting attention from courts’ essential functions. Additionally, some state legislatures throughout the country are not properly funding local courts, which leaves local courts to bring in revenue to support their operating budgets, undermining the public’s faith in the justice system. The reliance on revenue from fines and fees distorts incentives and can lead to the misallocation of public safety resources. The recent increase in using private companies to collect fines and fees further exacerbates these issues.