©AndreyPopov via Canva.com
What Should the Felony Threshold Be for Shoplifting?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently discussed how he had to defend his state’s $950 threshold for grand theft after a Target worker unknowingly blamed him for a shoplifting incident.
Speaking earlier this month at a press conference on a mental health proposition, Newsom said he was recently about to check out at a Target when he saw a man walk out of the store without paying. As he checked out, a Target cashier who did not recognize him informed the governor that the man was “just walking out,” according to Newsom.
“I said, ‘Well why didn’t you stop him?’ She goes, ‘Oh the governor,’” Newsom recounted. “The governor lowered the threshold, there’s no accountability,” the worker said, per Newsom.
“That’s just not true. I said, ‘We have the 10th toughest — $950 — it’s the 10th toughest in America.’ She doesn’t even know what I was talking about,” Newsom responded.
Under California’s Proposition 47, which passed in 2014, stealing anything worth less than $950 constitutes a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
According to World Population Review, the majority of states have a felony theft threshold between $1,000 and $1,500 — the average across the U.S. is $1,184. New Jersey has the lowest threshold in the country at $200, followed by Illinois and New Mexico at $500. The highest, $2,500, is found in Texas and Wisconsin.
Misdemeanors generally result in less than a year in jail, community service, fines, rehabilitation, and/or probation, while felonies result in at least a year in prison. A felony can also affect someone’s ability to rent or buy housing, apply for a job, and vote.
In 2022, a police reform advocacy group Campaign Zero launched a “Raise The Threshold” effort, arguing that low threshold dollar amounts for felony convictions result in “overly harsh sentences and contribute to the mass incarceration crisis in this country,” also disproportionately affecting communities of color.
The organization noted that many states haven’t raised their felony threshold in decades. According to Pew Research, recent changes to thresholds in some states “reflect not only the gradual impact of inflation, but also allowed states to focus corrections resources on more serious offenses and made punishments more proportionate to theft crimes.”
The National Retail Federation (NRF), which has been sending out alarms about jumps in shoplifting, has blamed increased felony theft thresholds in part for reported retail crime surges.
In a 2022 blog entry, the NRF wrote that many state laws in recent years had not only increased felony theft thresholds but lowered the bail required for minor offenses and removed non-violent offenders from the prison system in hopes of reducing the likelihood of “career criminals.”
The NRF said, “In an effort to help locales meet criminal justice reform goals and free resources to go after more violent and serious offenders, those apprehended were often quickly released due to the ‘non-violent’ and unimportant nature of these property crimes. The result is that criminals can recruit people to steal inexpensive items in great quantities with no fear of retribution or prosecution.”
Discussion Questions
Generally, do you favor lower threshold dollar amounts for felony convictions as an incentive to reduce shoplifting, or do you see better alternatives?
Do you see increased felony theft thresholds as a major driver of recent retail crime surges?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Cathy Hotka
Principal, Cathy Hotka & Associates
Harley Feldman
Co-Founder and CMO, Seeonic, Inc.
Crime is crime. It doesn’t matter whether you steal a $100 product or a $1,000 product; you are committing a crime. That crime deserves to be punished in some way. Now, to be fair, a misdemeanor for stealing below a certain dollar amount is still punishable; it’s just that the consequences are usually less severe than for a felony. Even in California, which often comes in for criticism, misdemeanor shoplifting can carry a 6 month jail sentence and/or a fine of up to $1,000. What we need to ensure is that punishment is consistently applied and that a clear message is sent that shoplifting is unacceptable. Laws to ensure repeated offenses get harsher and harsher punishments would also be sensible.
This is a red herring: the problem isn’t the threshold, it’s the lack of prosecution, or meaningful penalties if prosecuted and convicted. Few things would be less useful, but of course more political – than upping the maximum penalty for something, but leaving the minimum low….and of course nothing is so low as no enforcement at all.
We have gotten soft on shoplifting and retailers are paying for it in more ways than one. I ran stores in the 70s when groups of shoplifters came in frequently and took entire racks of clothing. I was always getting lectured about shrink, and it was tough to keep associates because working in the store was scary. It’s much worse today. Craig Sundstrom is right; the problem isn’t the threshold, it’s the lack of prosecution and conviction.
Honest consumers pay for shoplifting as retailers build this loss into the costs of being in business. I understand the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor, but that doesn’t mean the misdemeanor can’t come with some consequence that is tough enough to deter shoplifting. If the first time someone is caught they are given a warning with some consequence that stings a little (a fine, community service, etc.), I’m good with that as long as the store (the victim) is made whole. The second time could have a harsher consequence that could successfully act as a deterrent to a third time. Does all of this mean the misdemeanor threshold is too low? No. The consequence for this type of misdemeanor may be too low.
Threshold? How about the threshold is committing a crime. Steal and suffer the consequences. Period. How about a fine of 100X of the value of item stolen? You get caught stealing a $1 candy bar? Pay $100 fine. Steal a $100 sweater? Pay a $10,000 fine. Or even a 10X/$1000 fine. Give crooks a meaningful reason to think about the consequences. Don’t clog the jails for that kind of crime. Make it painfully expensive. Let jail time kick in for habitual, organized activity. Sure, set a threshold for higher levels of crime, but don’t let the small timers off so easily. It escalates!
I wonder how many shoplifters don’t consider themselves “crooks”?
I suspect some don’t. I have seen the point made that big retailers can afford to have items stolen – like this justifies the act in some way. It’s warped morality!
Vey warped.
That’s a great idea, Jeff! All crime is crime. But link the punishment to the value stolen. For repeat offenders, start adding in some jail time!
There’s a surge in brazen shoplifting because thieves believe they can get away with it. Nothing is more enraging to a consumer than standing in line to pay when others are “just walking out.” We need to do more than just paying lip service to the problem.
The threshold should not matter. What should matter is there are consequences for people who take anything, and people should have a moral compass that to take anything from a store is wrong. Somehow a lot of people’s minds have been poisoned with irrational rhetoric from our so called political leaders (thinking of Congresswoman Cortez posting a video stating that people are “simply trying to eat” … hilarious.
Sadly, it seems shoplifting is such a low priority for the police that one can get away with taking things regardless of the threshold, and when they do make an arrest the DA makes it easy to be released without charges, and any store associate who tries to intervene is fired, and the rest of us are too busy “filming” the action to do anything.
What will happen is stores will continue to close in high crime areas, politicians will try to make it a campaign issue (they are closing stores where the need is greatest, etc.) and any kind of policy change will be so devoid of reality that one will wonder if we have preschoolers running our Government (witness the recent proposal of $50 minimum wage in California).
A genuinely sad state of affairs.
The problem is not if this is a felony or misdemeanor. The problem is it is not considered a serious crime. Only 5% to 10% of shoplifters are caught, and only about 30% are prosecuted.
While we highlight professional shoplifting, it only represents about 10% of the total. Most shoplifting is for $25 or less. The entire shoplifting phenomenon is a cultural problem, not an enforcement problem. It is the “no big deal” attitude.
Stealing is stealing. The amount stolen should not matter. The punishment might vary depending on the amount stolen, but stealing is a crime. California has decided to prosecute criminals only if the value of the items stolen is above $950. This gives criminals a license to steal at amounts below $950 which is what has happened. California should prosecute retail theft at much lower levels of value to discourage retail theft.
That’s not accurate, even per the article. You can prosecute for a misdemeanor if below $950, a felony if above. It’s just that the consequences are different. No one is saying that stealing is not a crime. Perhaps we should be staffing prosecutors’ offices and the court system better, and getting more real detectives on the beat instead of buying military gear for local police departments. Taxes will need to go up in order for business expense to go down, but people want to get everything and pay nothing.
“Shoplifting” implies that one or more individuals steal merchandise from the racks or shelves of a store. There should be a scale of fines for shoplifting ranging from $1 to thousands of dollars. Not surprisingly, each state sets its own felony amount, which varies widely.
A bigger problem arises when gangs of thieves, let’s call them criminals, storm into a retail store and wildly destroy store apparatus and glass cases, overwhelming employees and security. It’s totally intimidating.
For every individual involved in the above situation, intimidation, destruction, and the impact on businesses and shoppers is a felony in itself, not just the amount.
Where greater leniency exists, and criminals are treated as victims, states like California are asking for trouble, and they’re getting it. Those who intimidate and ransack retail stores in our country today need to face much greater consequences. – Db
One answer is to lock the doors, so that customers can enter, but not exit without a code or serious security guards at the door. Keep the doors locked tight, so that only real shoppers can easily leave, even if nothing is purchased. Are there enough police and tough judges to stop all this?