A Democratic Socialists of America-backed state lawmaker in New York is drawing sharp criticism after arguing that shoplifting is driven by "biological need" and should not be treated as a serious crime, remarks that critics say reveal a dangerous disconnect from the realities of retail theft plaguing the state.
New York Assemblymember Marcela Mitaynes, who represents parts of Brooklyn, made the comments during a recent public appearance in which she discussed criminal justice policy and retail theft. Her remarks quickly drew fire from law enforcement advocates, business owners, and fellow lawmakers who say the rhetoric provides cover for a shoplifting crisis that has battered New York retailers and driven some stores to close.
Mitaynes, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, framed shoplifting as an act born of desperation rather than criminality. She argued that people who shoplift are fulfilling a "biological need," suggesting that theft of food or basic goods should be understood through the lens of poverty and survival rather than law enforcement.
Fox News reported on the backlash that followed her remarks, which spread rapidly on social media and drew condemnation from across the political spectrum. Critics seized on the "biological need" framing as an attempt to excuse criminal behavior and undermine accountability for theft.
The assemblywoman's comments came as New York continues to grapple with elevated rates of retail theft. Major chain stores have cited shoplifting as a factor in decisions to close locations or reduce hours in the city, and the issue has become a flashpoint in debates over the state's criminal justice reforms.
The reaction was swift and pointed. Opponents argued that Mitaynes's framing ignores the organized and often brazen nature of much of the shoplifting that has plagued New York retailers. Critics noted that many shoplifting incidents involve not desperate individuals stealing bread but repeat offenders and organized rings targeting high-value merchandise for resale.
Law enforcement figures and retail industry advocates pushed back on the idea that theft can be explained away as a survival instinct. They pointed to the toll that persistent shoplifting takes on store employees, small business owners, and the communities that lose access to goods and services when retailers pull out of high-theft areas.
Conservative commentators highlighted the remarks as emblematic of a broader progressive approach to crime in New York, one they say prioritizes sympathy for offenders over protection for victims and law-abiding citizens. The "biological need" language, critics argued, strips away personal responsibility and treats property crime as a social inevitability rather than a choice with consequences.
Mitaynes's membership in the Democratic Socialists of America added fuel to the controversy. The DSA has backed a slate of New York lawmakers who have pushed for reduced penalties for low-level offenses, alternatives to incarceration, and other criminal justice changes that critics describe as soft on crime.
For opponents, the "biological need" comments fit a pattern. DSA-aligned lawmakers in New York have repeatedly clashed with moderate Democrats and Republicans over policing, bail reform, and prosecution standards. The shoplifting debate sits squarely at the center of those fights, with progressives arguing that poverty drives theft and conservatives countering that lax enforcement invites more of it.
New York's bail reform law, which eliminated cash bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, has been a particular lightning rod. Retailers and police unions have argued that the reforms created a revolving door for repeat shoplifters, who face little consequence even when caught. Supporters of the reforms say the old system punished poverty and did little to reduce crime.
The debate over shoplifting in New York is not abstract. Major retailers have publicly cited theft as a reason for store closures and operational changes. Target, Walgreens, and other national chains have reduced hours, locked up merchandise, or shuttered locations in New York City, pointing to shrinkage losses that eat into already thin margins.
Small business owners have described the problem in starker terms, saying that persistent theft threatens their ability to stay open. Bodega and convenience store operators in parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan have reported feeling abandoned by a system that, in their view, treats shoplifters with more concern than the people they steal from.
The National Retail Federation has tracked rising losses from retail theft nationwide, though the precise share attributable to shoplifting versus internal theft or other factors remains debated. In New York, the political dimension of the issue has made it difficult to separate data from narrative, with each side marshaling figures to support its position.
Mitaynes's comments reflect a philosophical split that runs through New York politics and, increasingly, through the national Democratic Party. On one side stand progressives who view property crime through a structural lens, arguing that inequality and deprivation produce predictable outcomes that punishment alone cannot solve. On the other stand moderates, conservatives, and many working-class voters who see crime as a matter of individual choices and who want the justice system to hold offenders accountable.
That divide has real policy consequences. In Albany, efforts to tighten penalties for repeat shoplifters have stalled amid opposition from progressive lawmakers. Proposals to expand the use of facial recognition technology in stores and to create dedicated retail theft task forces have faced similar resistance. Meanwhile, retailers continue to absorb losses, and consumers in affected neighborhoods pay the price through higher costs and fewer options.
The "biological need" framing, whatever its intent, lands in that contested space. To its defenders, it is an honest acknowledgment that poverty pushes people toward desperate acts. To its critics, it is an ideological dodge that treats lawbreaking as inevitable and robs victims of their standing.
Mitaynes has not backed away from her comments. Her office has not issued a clarification or walkback, and DSA-aligned allies have largely stood by the broader argument that poverty and inequality are root causes of retail theft.
Whether the backlash translates into political consequences remains to be seen. Mitaynes represents a deep-blue Brooklyn district where DSA endorsements carry weight and where progressive criminal justice positions remain popular among a significant share of the electorate. Statewide, however, the politics of shoplifting have shifted. Governor Kathy Hochul and other moderate Democrats have moved to toughen their rhetoric on retail theft, sensing that voters are losing patience with what they perceive as a permissive approach.
For Republicans and conservative critics, the episode is a gift. It crystallizes, in a single phrase, the argument they have been making for years: that New York's progressive establishment cares more about excusing criminals than protecting the people and businesses they prey on.
When elected officials start describing theft as biology rather than a crime, the question stops being about shoplifting. It becomes about whether the law still means anything at all.
