San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins’ recent announcement of charges against a man accused of 21 retail theft incidents has all the makings of a tough-on-crime soundbite. In a social media post, Jenkins vowed to “put a stop to these brazen acts” and ensure that “thieves understand they will face consequences.” This language—designed to project strength and control—fits neatly into the political playbook of escalating fears over crime, but it does little to actually address the underlying causes of theft or offer meaningful solutions for businesses and communities.
Retail theft is undoubtedly a problem for businesses, but aggressive prosecution and incarceration do not address its root causes. Studies have repeatedly shown that poverty, addiction, and mental health struggles are key drivers of property crimes, yet Jenkins’ approach focuses on punishment rather than prevention. Arresting and charging an individual does not prevent future theft; it merely recycles people through a legal system that is ill-equipped to handle the broader social issues at play.
This case underscores the broader failure of San Francisco’s leadership to implement policies that prevent crime rather than simply react to it. Retail theft has increased, but so too has economic instability. Many who engage in repeated theft cycles are unhoused or struggling with substance use. But rather than expand diversion programs, mental health services, or economic interventions, Jenkins’ office seems more focused on reinforcing a cycle of arrest and incarceration—an approach that has historically failed to reduce recidivism.
Jenkins’ statement frames theft as a crisis, but her office has not demonstrated the same urgency in addressing wage theft, corporate fraud, or other crimes that impact vulnerable residents. A 2021 study from the Economic Policy Institute found that wage theft—when employers fail to pay their workers what they are owed—costs workers over $50 billion a year, vastly more than all retail theft combined. Yet, these cases rarely elicit high-profile social media statements from district attorneys.
Additionally, the emphasis on “brazen” retail crimes—particularly thefts from Walgreens and CVS—ignores a more complex reality. Major retail chains have been caught exaggerating their losses to justify store closures and push for harsher anti-theft laws. Walgreens, for example, admitted in 2023 that it “cried too much” about theft concerns after using them as a justification for store shutdowns. While theft should not be dismissed, the selective emphasis on certain crimes serves political narratives more than it serves justice.
If the goal is truly to reduce theft and improve community safety, there are far better approaches than criminalization. Cities that have invested in guaranteed income programs, housing assistance, and robust mental health services have seen crime rates decline. Additionally, initiatives like retail theft diversion programs—which focus on intervention rather than incarceration—have shown success in reducing repeat offenses.
San Francisco has resources that could be better allocated to address the root causes of property crime rather than relying on the same failed cycle of prosecution and incarceration. Jenkins’ posturing may play well in media headlines, but it does little to create lasting solutions for struggling businesses or vulnerable communities.
Crime and safety are legitimate concerns, but effective leadership requires more than grandstanding about “brazen thieves.” If Jenkins truly wants to help San Francisco’s communities and businesses, she should shift focus from punitive measures to policies that address why these crimes happen in the first place. Arresting one person won’t stop retail theft, but investing in meaningful, systemic change just might.
