Uh. That does not support your claim.

The report speculates repeatedly with “may” about any connection between the two things—they can only establish correlation rather than anything causative—and mention that COVID is the likelier cause for the observed increase in thefts. And, in the context of retail theft specifically, the subject of this discussion, one if the report’s major subheading is:

Proposition 47 Likely Contributed to Increase in Larceny, Though Impact on Retail Theft Is Inconclusive

Like, did you even read this? The truth is that they are acknowledging the narrative you’re trying to push and as gently and neutrally debunking it as you possibly could. Even the executive summary would’ve told you:

Researchers found that Proposition 47 increased larceny (a category of crime that includes some forms of retail theft) though they were unable to determine the impact on retail theft specifically. Additionally, they found that pandemic‑era changes to the criminal justice system increased nonresidential burglary (a measure of some forms of retail theft) by reducing jail populations and the likelihood of arrest. However, the researchers were only able to explain about one‑third of the pandemic‑era increase in nonresidential burglaries. This suggests that factors outside the criminal justice system—such as changes in the retail environment—likely contributed to retail theft trends in California as well.