Prosecutors decide whether to charge. Cops quickly learn that arresting people that will not be charged is a waste of their time.

Seattle has a similar policy. Property crimes are not enforced.

Ok this still seems like a problem with enforcement and not with the law. We should not need increased sentences simply to get police protection from nuisance behavior. Undue inflation of consequences for smaller crimes has many negative side effects for our society - including increased cost of incarceration and long-term negative productivity of citizens. This is why these crimes were reduced in their sentencing - it seems like enforcement needs to catch up on a new balance.

I don't think Seattle has any such policy. Can you back this up?

If the police really wanted to deal with property crime, they'd go after the pawn shops and the fences, and the scrappers buying stolen copper.

No, that wouldn't stop people stealing things for their own use, but it would hit the professional thieves hard.

A robbery ring was recently broken where their M.O. was to ship stolen laptops off to Vietnam.

  https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Fremont-Detectives-Bust-International-Theft-Ring-With-Millions-in-Stolen-Electronics-472047833.html

Perhaps local fences still matter a great deal, but it seems like they're becoming increasingly less important.

It's a problem with the law. Prop 47, specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_47_(201...

A misdemeanor can still result in up to 12 months of jail time, though...

On paper, I would agree with you that up to 12 months of jail time for a relatively minor crime like shoplifting is reasonable. In practice, it appears the result of the new law is that the police don't bother showing up and property crime essentially isn't enforced.

For an adult, that sounds reasonable. For a child, you're stealing actual brain development and enculturation time.