A national drug crisis and a shoplifting epidemic have combined to make California, and the San Francisco Bay Area in particular, a hotbed of petty crime. Now Californians will have the opportunity to undo this trend, at least in part.
Our current state of affairs is largely a result of California Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014. Prop. 47 makes a number of felony property crimes misdemeanors in certain cases. These include burglary during business hours, forgery, fraud, shoplifting, and theft (including car theft if the value of the car is low enough). Moreover, the proposition also reclassifies the personal possession of most illegal drugs as misdemeanors.
Whether or not a crime on this list is eligible for reclassification under Prop. 47 comes down to two things: a dollar amount of less than $950 (for property crimes) and a lack of certain prior convictions. The prior convictions that make someone ineligible for Prop. 47 are largely “super strikes,” which are very serious felonies often punishable by life imprisonment or death. If these two conditions are met, individuals convicted of crimes covered by Prop. 47 can apply for a reclassification to a misdemeanor. This process can be repeated indefinitely for these crimes, as long as repeat offenders keep the dollar amount of their individual crimes below $950 and aren’t convicted of any super strikes. Indeed, petty theft with prior convictions is specifically designated as a crime eligible for Prop. 47 relief.
Prop. 47’s clause that any property crime can be reclassified to a misdemeanor if the amount of damages (incurred or attempted) is below or equal to $950 effectively creates a “ceiling” value that people can steal up to an unlimited number of times without ever risking a felony. The existence of this value has been a powerful force in the minds of both petty offenders and advocates of “law and order” (including former president Donald Trump) for the last eight years.
It is because of this magic number of $950 (over double the old felony threshold of $400) that Prop. 47 is commonly seen as resulting in “soft-on-crime” policies. Those in opposition to the referendum believe that it allows for opportunistic criminality. Indeed it has, which has contributed to a widespread perception of California’s cities as lawless wastelands and cost retail companies billions in lost merchandise.
Proponents of Prop. 47 see the legislation as keeping nonviolent offenders out of the prison population and saving taxpayers millions of dollars. But with a proposition on the ballot in November aiming to directly eliminate Prop. 47, the value of these benefits has, justifiably, been called into question.
Proposition 36, officially known as the “Allows Felony Charges And Increases Sentences For Certain Drug And Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute,” is an upcoming referendum aiming to largely reverse the effects of Prop. 47. If passed, Prop. 36 would undo the Prop. 47 reclassifications of crimes to misdemeanors, “if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes.” It would also create a new class of crime called “treatment-mandated felony” for individuals found to both “possess certain drugs” and who have two or more past convictions for “some drug crimes (such as possessing or selling drugs).” Evidence largely corroborates that crime has shot up in California since Prop. 47 took effect. If passed, Prop. 36 would be a powerful antidote to this.
The prevalence of retail theft in the Bay Area has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Alameda, San Mateo, and San Francisco County. And while most of the state prosecutes Prop. 47 misdemeanors, S.F. County (specifically the DA’s office) still largely maintains a policy of not charging even these reclassified misdemeanors. In practice, petty theft (including shoplifting) is such a small charge that the DA’s office does not want to spend significant resources on prosecuting it. This means that shoplifters who get caught usually get off without a conviction, and are free to continue stealing. It is possible for someone to steal thousands of dollars’ worth of items in San Francisco without being charged with so much as a misdemeanor, as long as they are stolen on different occasions. Anyone, from the truly needy to the absurdly fortunate, may take advantage of this loophole and serially shoplift with near-impunity, completely unafraid of any charges compounding on each other. Prop. 36 would change this and make a third theft offense a felony, even if all three thefts were below $950.
California Department of Public Health statistics show that drug overdoses have gone up in California since Proposition 47 made personal drug possession a misdemeanor throughout the state and effectively decriminalized it in places like San Francisco. This trend cannot be attributed solely to Prop. 47, as the rise of synthetic opioids like fentanyl has ravaged the entire United States in the past few years. But this crisis has hit some California cities particularly hard. While California’s overdose rate is actually lower than the nation’s, in San Francisco, the drug overdose rate has rapidly outpaced the national average.
Because Prop. 47 makes it tougher for drug users to be classified as felons and possession now usually doesn’t lead to jail time even upon repeat arrests, treatment rates for those caught with illegal drugs have gone down. Prop. 36 would reverse that and go an extra step in favor of mandating treatment, as the new category of “treatment-mandated felonies” will be dropped if the accused completes rehab. While those who oppose it call Prop. 36 the “War on Drugs 2.0,” this aspect of the referendum would create a compassionate plan for rehabilitation that is completely unlike the War on Drugs with its harsh and often racially biased sentencing.
Whether Prop. 47 is undone in favor of Prop. 36 comes down to how voters weigh the pros and cons of these two different paths for crime and punishment in California. Those who are going to vote for Prop. 36 in November see it as a proposition that will discourage opportunistic individuals from committing crimes, restore trust in public safety, and promote drug rehabilitation. This is in fact the majority viewpoint amongst Californians. A recent study from UC Berkeley’s Institute of Government Studies found that 60% of Californian voters favor Prop. 36, while only 21% oppose it. Support for the proposition is bipartisan, with moderate Democrats like S.F. Mayor London Breed joining many CA Republicans in their opposition to the failed idealism of Prop. 47.
Those who will nevertheless vote against Prop. 36 likely maintain convictions that prisons shouldn’t be filled with nonviolent offenders, that a low prison population has a positive effect on society, and that the savings from Prop. 47 are vital for many state programs. Although these things are true, ultimately Prop. 36’s mandated treatment clause and its crackdown on repeat offenders will reduce crime, drug addiction, and make California a safer state and better place to live.
Featured Image Source: NBC Los Angeles
Comments are closed.