Woke Brooklyn lawmaker suggests shoplifting should be LEGALIZED because thieves have ‘biological need’ for the things they steal
A Daily Mail report says Brooklyn lawmaker Emily Gallagher suggested that some shoplifting could be treated differently where people steal items to meet basic needs. The reported remarks have prompted debate over how theft laws should distinguish between necessity, poverty and criminal behaviour.
The article centres on Gallagher’s reference to a “biological need” for stolen goods, which critics interpret as an argument for legalising shoplifting in some circumstances. The supplied text does not include further details of her proposed policy, any legislation, or evidence that a legal change is under consideration.
- Brooklyn lawmaker reportedly linked some shoplifting to basic needs.
- Remarks sparked debate over theft and poverty.
- No specific legal proposal is detailed.
New here? Start with this
Shoplifting is taking goods from a shop without paying, and is generally a criminal offence in New York and elsewhere in the United States. Cases can range from stealing food or other essentials to organised theft for resale, and the circumstances can affect how police, prosecutors and courts respond.
Emily Gallagher is a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly who represents part of Brooklyn. Her reported comments refer to the idea that people in severe hardship may steal to meet basic needs, raising questions about whether the law should treat such cases differently from other theft.
The debate sits within wider arguments about poverty, public safety and the pressures facing retailers. Critics of looser enforcement say it could encourage theft, while supporters of alternatives to prosecution argue that punishment alone may not address homelessness, hunger or lack of access to essential goods.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters may argue that criminal law should recognise genuine necessity, particularly when people take food, hygiene products or other essentials because poverty or crisis has left them without viable alternatives. They may favour prosecutorial discretion, diversion or hardship defences rather than punishment, on the grounds that addressing deprivation is more humane and more effective than imposing fines or criminal records on vulnerable people.
The case against
Critics may argue that theft laws need clear, consistently enforced boundaries to protect shopkeepers, workers and customers, especially small businesses that absorb the cost of losses. They may accept that poverty requires stronger social support while maintaining that broad exemptions or ambiguous standards could encourage repeat offending, make enforcement unfairly subjective and fail to address the harm caused to local communities.