Shoplifting (Photo – imcomkorea)
The Proposition shows California’s perfect blend of progressivism and public safety.
By Shashank Tongaonkar
A few months ago, I wrote an op-ed covering the appalling effects of shoplifting in California. Shoplifting was so rampant in 2022 that retailers across the state lost a staggering $8.72 billion to theft and fraud, resulting in a $1.3 billion loss in tax revenue for California. Fast forward to the present: just a few months later, the deep-blue California public has overwhelmingly voted in favor of a seemingly conservative and right-leaning anti-crime measure, Proposition 36.
Proposition 36 brings the promise of meaningful change to our community, addressing some of the biggest gaps in existing legislation. It introduces measures such as “adding new laws to address the increasing problem of ‘smash and grab’ thefts,” “reinstating penalties for hard drug dealers whose trafficking results in death or serious injury to a user,” and “providing drug and mental health treatment for people addicted to hard drugs.” By balancing rehabilitation for those in need with adequate punishment for repeat offenders, Proposition 36 reflects a shift in priorities for Californians, blending progressive values with a renewed focus on public safety.
One of the most significant changes Proposition 36 introduces is a tougher stance on retail theft. It promises to charge repeat shoplifting offenders with felonies instead of misdemeanors—a much-needed adjustment given the undeniable rise in retail crime. For example, at the Old Navy store where I work as an asset protection lead, we lose well over $100,000 a year to theft. A little over a year ago, a Macy’s store nearby was raided by a group of “smash-and-grabbers.” Such incidents are partly a result of California’s historically lenient approach to shoplifting. By enforcing stricter penalties for repeat offenders, the law gives first-time offenders a chance to reform while ensuring that habitual offenders face appropriate consequences. The theoretical decrease in crime resulting from this bill could also boost state tax revenues, as reduced theft leads to higher retail earnings and fewer theft-related tax deductions.
Critics of this bill often cite the increased costs associated with its implementation. Stricter incarceration rules will undoubtedly lead to a rise in the prison population, increasing spending on the justice and prison systems. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the increased costs will amount to between a few million dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars. However, what justifies government spending more than public safety? Isn’t the safety of our communities one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason we pay taxes? Additionally, recouping even a fraction of the 1.3 billion dollars in lost tax revenue from reduced retail crime could help fund the infrastructure required to support this bill.
Another criticism is the bill’s treatment of drug offenses as felonies. Under Prop. 36 people can be charged with felonies for minor drug possession. However, classifying drug-related offenses as felonies could deter first-time users and send a strong message that society will not tolerate drug abuse. This measure could help restore a much-needed stigma against drug use, particularly among young people. At the same time, Proposition 36 allows offenders to avoid jail time by completing rehabilitation, ensuring those who need help can access it.
Proposition 36 signals a new future for California. With tough-on-crime district attorneys like Nathan Hochman being elected across the state, we can expect meaningful change moving forward. While Californians can still take pride in being one of the nation’s most progressive and successful states, they’ve also recognized that when it comes to public safety, change is overdue. Thank you, California, for passing Proposition 36.
Excellent article. Well articulated. Balanced perspective.