WATCH — NYC: Socialist Lawmaker Claims Stealing for 'Biological Need' Should Not Be Illegal

A socialist lawmaker in New York City has sparked controversy by suggesting that individuals who steal basic necessities like toothpaste and soap should not be arrested, arguing that such actions stem from a “biological need.” State Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, representing parts of Brooklyn, made these remarks during a public appearance outside Manhattan Criminal Court on Thursday. Her comments, which align with broader progressive advocacy for criminal justice reform, drew sharp criticism from both law enforcement officials and conservative lawmakers. Gallagher, who identifies as a democratic socialist and neighborhood organizer, stated that many of the individuals arrested for minor thefts are driven by financial hardship. She cited examples of people stealing hygiene products and emphasized that these acts reflect desperation rather than intent to commit crime. “We are choosing to protect billion-dollar companies, like CVS and Walgreens, over the people who are struggling to get by,” she said. Gallagher further contended that the current legal system disproportionately targets individuals in poverty, reinforcing existing inequalities. Her remarks were made alongside members of Court Watch NYC, an organization that claims to monitor arraignments and has previously highlighted disparities in how low-level offenses are handled. According to reports, the group observed that over half of the cases they reviewed involved misdemeanor charges, often related to petty theft. Gallagher used this data to argue that the criminal justice system fails to address root causes of poverty and instead punishes individuals for survival. The comments have ignited debate within both political and law enforcement circles. Critics, including Republican lawmakers such as Reps. Claudia Tenney and Nicole Malliotakis, have warned that socialist policies risk eroding individual freedoms and economic stability. Tenney referenced her experience in Yugoslavia, describing how government control over resources led to severe shortages and diminished quality of life. Malliotakis similarly cautioned that incremental expansion of state power, such as through price controls or rationing, could undermine the free market and lead to long-term societal harm. Law enforcement officials have also expressed concerns. Former NYPD Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce argued that reducing enforcement of low-level offenses could result in increased disorder. “Really, you have to go make those arrests,” Boyce told ABC7. “Otherwise, you’d have chaos on the street.” These warnings come amid ongoing discussions about the effectiveness of “broken windows” policing, a strategy aimed at addressing minor infractions to prevent more serious crime. Meanwhile, some critics have pointed out that Gallagher's claims about the frequency of arrests for stealing everyday items lack legal backing. Under New York’s 2019 bail reform, petit larceny, the charge covering thefts under $1,000, is classified as a non-qualifying offense, meaning judges cannot set bail and must release defendants. Many first-time offenders receive desk appearance tickets or even have charges dismissed after review. Additionally, retailers have taken steps to reduce theft by placing high-demand items behind locked displays. Despite these legal realities, Gallagher’s message resonates with some community advocates who believe that systemic change is necessary to address deeper socioeconomic issues. However, opponents argue that relaxing enforcement could jeopardize progress made in reducing crime rates. NYPD data through August 9 shows a decline in retail theft and petit larceny compared to the previous year, raising questions about the impact of current policing strategies. As the November midterms approach, the discussion around criminal justice reform continues to gain momentum. With political tensions rising and ideological divides deepening, the debate over how to balance public safety with social equity remains far from settled. For now, Gallagher’s statements stand as a provocative challenge to traditional notions of law and order, reflecting broader ideological shifts in American politics.