A Democrat Has Found an Insane Way to 'Lower' Crime Rates

Emily Gallagher's soap-and-toothpaste theory has been kicking around for a while now, and it keeps resurfacing because it's such a tidy little story. Poor person, empty shelf, desperate need. The only problem is that it doesn't match what actually happens in most of these cases. Organized retail theft rings exist because stolen toiletries, razors, baby formula, whatever, get resold in bulk on the street or online. That's a business model, not a survival strategy. Treating every shoplifter like a sympathetic character in a Dickens novel doesn't just get the facts wrong, it tells actual criminal operations that nobody in Albany is paying attention.

The "lowering crime rates" part of this is the real sleight of hand. If your theory of theft is wrong, your policy response will be wrong too, and the numbers you produce afterward will be meaningless. Decriminalize or deprioritize enough of it, redefine thresholds, stop prosecuting under a certain dollar amount, and of course the reported crime rate drops. That's not fewer people stealing. That's fewer people getting caught, charged, or counted. Store owners in New York have been saying this for years, watching the same faces walk out with garbage bags full of product while employees are told not to intervene.

None of this means poverty is irrelevant to crime in general, and nobody serious argues otherwise. But conflating shoplifting rings with hardship is an insult to people who are actually poor and don't steal, which is the overwhelming majority of them. It also lets legislators avoid the harder conversation about why organized theft has become so brazen and so consequence-free in the first place.

At some point the "we lowered crime" claim needs to survive contact with a Duane Reade manager's actual inventory sheet. Until it does, treat these numbers the way you'd treat a receipt that doesn't add up.