In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, which reduced certain low-level property and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The proposition, which was approved by 53.2% of Orange County voters, requires the allocation of savings from reduced incarceration into rehabilitation and crime prevention programs. However, the measure has come under scrutiny from some legislators and law enforcement officials, who claim the measure may be contributing to increases in property crime. Below are the perspectives of two candidates for Orange County District Attorney — incumbent DA Todd Spitzer and challenger Pete Hardin — in response to queries from our editorial board. The responses have been lightly edited for clarity.
“Proposition 47 has become the scapegoat to explain away all the various and complicated reasons for the increase in crime. That subject is complex and there is not one event that causes increases in crime.
For any criminal justice system to be effective, there must be programs to help those who find themselves in the system; differentiate between serious and low-level offenders; create incentives to engage in and complete programs that help the offender deal with their issues such as drug and/or alcohol addiction, homelessness, inability to get or keep a job, housing to provide stability and provide successful outcomes for those who invest in changing their behavior.
I do believe that some changes to the theft laws are necessary. Instead of a conviction for a first or second time petty theft, I support diversion. The charged person needs to have services that get to the underlying reason they have the need to steal. This is where the investment in social workers and counselors needs to be dramatically enhanced. The prosecutors should be present in court in a supportive role, but a firm role that ensures that completion of diversion is rewarded; but the hammer of a prosecution is still present if the persons does not invest in their own rehabilitation.
At the same time, mental health issues are ever present in a large percentage of criminal cases and professionals must assist to stabilize this population so that it can help of help itself. I don’t want our jails filled with the mentally ill and we need our policy makers to decide how to deal with the homeless and the mentally ill.
We have to acknowledge that we have not properly addressed these most pressing issues and certainly throwing money at the issue has not solved it. Jail settings must address mental illness, but jails cannot be the replacement facilities for addressing the mentally ill which is presently the dominant setting handling the criminally mentally ill.”
“The amount of misinformation swirling around Proposition 47 is staggering and unfortunate. Since its passage recidivism is down, statewide property crime is down, and racial disparities are down.
Most people don’t realize that prior to Proposition 47, simply being caught in possession of drugs for personal use (not drug dealing) was a felony. The result was that for decades California handed out felonies for low-level drug crimes that made millions of people unemployable and unable to get housing. The inability to find a place to live or a job are primary factors that drive homelessness and recidivism. This approach is one of the reason’s California is facing a homelessness crisis, as we branded millions of people with the scarlet letter of a felony conviction and eliminated their ability to find employment or housing.
Related Articles
Politicians eager to send Californians cash for gas
Hawley’s attack on Ketanji Brown Jackson illustrates the emotionalism she criticized
The real reason why Russia won’t be kicked out of the UN
Bold visions and strategies for California’s next century
Stop home equity theft by the state of California
I do think law enforcement officials like the DA need to do a better job educating local police on the law. There are circumstances where we often hear police say their hands are tied due to Proposition 47, even if Proposition 47 does not apply. For example, where police believe that an offense is ongoing or likely to continue they can still make a custodial arrest for petty theft. They don’t have to simply write a ticket.
Recent smash and grabs, let alone robberies, burglaries, and the theft of expensive handbags were all blamed on Proposition 47, even though those crimes remain felonies and none of those circumstances are covered by any aspect of Proposition 47.
While Proposition 47 raised our felony theft threshold to keep pace with inflation, many more conservative states have significantly higher theft thresholds. In fact, since 2000, at least 39 states have raised their theft thresholds, including nine states that did it twice. Researchers at Pew Charitable Trusts have found that, ‘states can safely raise felony thresholds for theft offenses without disrupting downward trends in property crime.’”