Retail theft continues to be a political flashpoint in San Francisco, with politicians and law enforcement officials quick to cite it as a continuing crisis. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman’s recent post, amplified by District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, is yet another example of this reactionary narrative.
Mandelman declares that retail theft is “hurting businesses and the residents who rely on them,” thanking law enforcement for “efforts to stop the madness.” The rhetoric is stark, designed to stoke public fears and justify harsher criminal justice policies. But how much of this “madness” is real, and how much is political theater?
There is no question that shoplifting and organized retail theft exist. Businesses, especially large chains like Walgreens, have been vocal about theft impacting their bottom line. But media and political narratives have exaggerated the problem, often ignoring key context.
A 2021 San Francisco Chronicle investigation found that Walgreens greatly overstated its claims about shoplifting losses when justifying store closures. Internal data revealed that theft levels in some locations were not significantly different from other cities. The real factor behind closures? Cost-cutting measures and corporate restructuring.
Meanwhile, the most recent data from the California Department of Justice does not show an unprecedented crime wave. While property crime did increase slightly in the wake of the pandemic, it remains far below historic highs of the 1990s and early 2000s.
The rise of viral videos depicting brazen shoplifting incidents has undoubtedly fueled public perception, but anecdotal evidence and a handful of high-profile cases do not constitute a crisis. Crime trends must be analyzed through data, not sensationalized social media posts.
Mandelman and Jenkins’ rhetoric also raises concerns about the potential rollback of progressive criminal justice reforms in response to these claims. Their post references one of the first cases prosecuted under a post-Proposition 36 framework, subtly reinforcing the idea that past reforms were a mistake.
Proposition 36, passed in 2024, rolled back key provisions of Proposition 47, increasing penalties for retail theft and making it easier to charge repeat shoplifters with felonies. Supporters framed it as a necessary response to rising theft, but critics argue it revives the failed punitive policies of the past—policies that disproportionately harm marginalized communities without effectively deterring crime.
Since its passage, Proposition 36 has led to a surge in felony prosecutions for retail theft, reversing years of progress in criminal justice reform. Rather than addressing the root causes of economic desperation, addiction, and homelessness, the measure relies on outdated, punishment-first strategies that have historically failed. Now, politicians like Mandelman and Jenkins use retail theft as a wedge issue, justifying harsh crackdowns even when evidence suggests they are neither necessary nor effective.
Tough-on-crime narratives inevitably target the most vulnerable. The reality is that many low-level shoplifters are struggling with poverty, addiction, or mental health issues. Criminalizing desperation does not address its root causes.
A 2022 report by the Prison Policy Initiative found that most incarcerated people charged with theft-related crimes come from poverty-stricken backgrounds, with many experiencing homelessness at the time of their arrest. Rather than investing in housing, addiction treatment, or mental health services, officials like Jenkins and Mandelman push for punitive measures that further entrench cycles of incarceration and instability.
This approach also ignores the structural inequalities behind retail theft. Large corporations like Walgreens and Target frequently underpay workers and contribute to economic inequality while benefiting from tax breaks and subsidies. When crime is committed by corporate America—whether wage theft, price gouging, or tax evasion—it is rarely met with the same level of outrage.
San Francisco has already increased its law enforcement response to retail theft, with dedicated units focused on organized retail crime. But expanding police presence and prosecution has historically failed to solve social problems.
A study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that increasing incarceration rates for property crimes had a negligible impact on crime reduction. Meanwhile, cities that have prioritized community-based interventions, economic investment, and alternatives to incarceration have seen longer-term declines in crime.
If Mandelman and Jenkins were serious about solutions, they would be advocating for:
- Expanding economic support programs to address poverty-related crime.
- Increasing funding for mental health and addiction services to prevent desperation-driven theft.
- Holding corporations accountable for labor and tax practices that exploit workers while demanding a punitive approach to petty theft.
Instead, they offer empty platitudes and reactionary policy proposals designed to score political points rather than solve real issues.
The narrative of a retail theft crisis in San Francisco is a manufactured moral panic, pushed by politicians looking to position themselves as tough on crime. While theft should not be dismissed, the response should be rooted in evidence-based policy rather than knee-jerk crackdowns.
San Franciscans deserve real solutions, not scapegoating and fearmongering. Mandelman and Jenkins’ rhetoric does little to stop crime—but it does reinforce a failed system of mass incarceration that has done nothing to make communities safer.
Rather than focusing on headlines and Twitter soundbites, our leaders should ask: What actually works? Because history has shown us what doesn’t.
They’ve already got a “solution”: Lock up the toothpaste, and close stores. No “fearmongering” necessary.
I’ve seen that some stores now lock up laundry detergent. Why is that a high theft item. It would be kind of difficult to hide that under your clothing.
Laundry detergent has been a high theft item for years. Tide pods are like street currency these days. They have resale value, no serial numbers for tracking, bulk theft for organized crime and a lack of security features.
I’m talking about the big plastic containers of detergent are locked up. Heavy and bulky.
Think about it this way – everyone has to wash clothes, detergent doesn’t go bad or have an expiration date, and it costs a lot of money for a poor person to buy a big container, whereas you can get a small amount for a buck or two on the street – the bottom line is there’s a market there for that, that’s why people are stealing it.
Also, I see a report that a 150 ounce bottle of Tide liquid might run around $20 retail, but sell on the street for $5. Tide pods can sell on the street for less than a buck.
Based upon the article and your previous comments, I thought that your position is that retail theft isn’t even occurring in the first place. (In other words, not a factor regarding store closures, locking up items, etc.)
There’s a difference between acknowledging that theft occurs and questioning whether it’s the primary reason behind corporate decisions.
Seems to me that some are driven to find alternative explanations, due to their underlying beliefs/values.
Can’t imagine what motive a corporation would have to “lie” in regard to store closures. Are they afraid that their existing (non-criminal) customers would hold that against them in regard to a store that doesn’t even exist anymore?
Corporations don’t necessarily “lie” outright, but they do frame narratives in ways that best serve their interests.
But again, how would that supposed “narrative” align with their interests?
(Other than not having to lock up detergent bottles – if the law was enforced for example?)
You’re set on diving into the proverbial rabbit hole again.
It’s a simple and honest question.
It’s not a simple answer
That could be. I just thought of another possible reason, as well.
These establishments might be concerned about liability, if someone gets hurt in a relatively lawless environment. (Including staff, customers, and the criminals themselves.)
Probably a much bigger risk than daily losses of merchandise.
….
Today’s news:
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie unveils sweeping reforms to city’s approach to homelessness, behavioral health
By Carlos Castañeda
Updated on: March 17, 2025 / 12:46 PM PDT / CBS San Francisco
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-mayor-lurie-homelessness-drug-addiction-behavioral-health-breaking-the-cycle/
This article reads like it was written by a socialist/anarchist.