Backers of Proposition 36 would have you believe that California’s criminal laws attract thieves and that public safety cannot be achieved without long prison sentences for those who possess illegal drugs for personal use. He offered ballot measures that would repeal voter-smart reforms, partially refill prisons and revive the war on drugs.
They claim that the solution will improve drug treatment and fight homelessness, when at least they can do the opposite. It will suck up much of the funding Californians recently approved for mental health care, and gut programs that have successfully slashed recidivism and brought much-needed trauma recovery services to crime victims.
Proposition 36 is a wrong turn. Voters saw through the previous rollback attempt four years ago and would be wise to say “no” again.
The problems the measure claims – retail theft, drug abuse and homelessness – are linked. But despite supporters’ claims, they have nothing to do with Proposition 47, the smart 2014 criminal justice reform measure that brought California’s theft laws in line with other states and made drug possession for personal use a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison.
The new measure will allow third misdemeanor theft to be charged as a felony. For someone with two prior petty thefts, stealing a slice of pizza — to borrow the example of the three-strikes legal excess — can result in a multi-year sentence that is counterproductive with no new assurance of a law-abiding return to society at the end. of the terms.
Police can stop petty thieves now if they make misdemeanor arrests, as they can and sometimes should under current law. But they don’t, because they argue it’s not worth their time. They are asking voters to change the law to match their usual practice, rather than update the practice to match the legislation they are asking for. Californians should expect the police to follow the law, instead of the other way around.
The police were caught flat-footed as smash-and-call robbers, South American tourist thieves, copper wire thieves and online buyers and sellers of stolen goods wreaked havoc with a new mode of crime. It took a long time, but authorities finally responded with a task force and first-rate detective work.
Today the daily reports of arrests – literally thousands of people – are as common as videotaped robberies just a year ago. They didn’t elicit the same emotional response, but the ongoing string of arrests was astounding in scope and execution by prosecutors.
Just Google “Los Angeles,” “theft” and “arrest” to find endless stories of people whose crimes made headlines a year or two ago have finally been brought down.
Proposition 47 has nothing to do with that crime, and Proposition 36 won’t stop it. This is because robbery, burglary and grand theft have become crimes, punishable by long prison terms. Existing laws are adequate to deal with such crimes – whenever law enforcement is ready to use them.
For repeat drug offenders, Proposition 36 would create a “treatment-mandated felony” with a third possession charge, meaning the accused would have to complete court-supervised drug treatment or be sentenced to years in prison or prison.
This component is based on some speculative or specious assumptions – the accused has been addicted, the drug court prevents relapse, effective treatment is widely available and people who have problems using substances will kick the habit even if they do not have a home, source of work or prospects. It also assumes that California’s serious problems with opioids and methamphetamine suddenly surfaced when we eliminated felony possession charges. If that happens, all the other states that still charge felony possession won’t have the same drug problem. But they are.
The standard for treating meth addiction is six months of residential treatment followed by outpatient treatment, but the waiting list for treatment beds is long, and Medi-Cal is only 30 days (60 to 90 with special approval). Twenty-two counties have no home care. Proposition 36 provides no funding. Backers say the money could come from Proposition 1, just adopted by voters in March – but that is supposed to pay for the treatment of mental illness, not just addiction recovery.
People who fail to complete treatment – and almost all of them relapse after the first time – are supposed to go to jail, but the jails in Los Angeles and most other large counties are legal and the jailers need that place for violent and dangerous criminals, not convicted criminals. for drug possession, which will probably be released into the street. This may mean more homelessness, as a short stay in jail is associated with lost financial and emotional stability.
Instead of providing funding, the measure will reduce it. Proposition 47 has so far saved the state more than $800 million in prisons, and that money has been diverted to carefully monitored anti-recidivism programs, trauma recovery for crime victims and school programs. More crime convictions mean less savings and less spending on prevention and victim services.
California has a serious property crime problem, including car theft and burglary, and is now starting to use the tools available in state law. We have a serious drug problem that requires a thoughtful response and massive resources. Proposition 36 assumes that the task can be done cheaply. Incompetent. It’s more of an illusion than a solution. Vote no.
