Prop. 47’s drug-law reforms inject controversy

panic in needle parkCalifornia’s decision to reduce sentences for some drug and property crimes has been heralded as a much needed reform of the criminal justice system. While it’s too soon to know what effect the measure is having on crime, critics charge it could jeopardize progress in the state’s drug courts and a widespread drop in property crimes.

Last November, voters approved Proposition 47 by a 20 percentage-point margin. The measure reclassified half a dozen drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. It also removed some degree of prosecutorial discretion for “wobbler” crimes, those that can either be charged as a felony or misdemeanor.

“We must devote our resources to keeping violent criminals off the streets, not cycling addicts in and out of jail,” San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon posted on Facebook following Prop. 47’s victory. “Nobody wins when we incarcerate someone at a cost of thousands to taxpayers, just for them to be released some time later and reoffend.”

If nobody won under the old system, critics say addicts could very well lose under the new law if it ends up undermining the state’s programs for treating substance abuse.

Prop 47: Prioritize violent, serious crimes

Proponents of the measure argued it was a necessary criminal justice reform to save money and reduce the state’s prison population.

“Proposition 47 invests in solutions supported by the best criminal justice science, which will increase safety and make better use of taxpayer dollars,” the measure’s proponents argued in their ballot statement. “Proposition 47 is sensible. It focuses law enforcement dollars on violent and serious crime while providing new funding for education and crime prevention programs that will make us all safer.”

In 2013, 1,212,801 people were arrested in California, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Drug-related violations accounted for 217,520 arrests, the largest category. Property crimes resulted in 139,624 arrests and ranked third after driving under the influence.

According to a report by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 188,790 Californians faced felony charges for the six offenses reclassified under Prop. 47. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that roughly 40,000 offenders every year would be affected by the change in state law.

The substantial number of cases affected by the measure bolsters proponents’ argument that the measure will bring about major cost savings to the state.

Drug courts lose powerful threat

In recent years, California’s drug courts have been one of the most effective programs for addressing drug addiction. These programs are targeted at low-level drug offenses and provide substance abuse treatment instead of prison time.

“But at the heart of the program,” the Los Angeles Times recently noted, “is the threat of a felony sentence if participants flunk out.”

Prop. 47 effectively eliminated that threat by reducing the punishment for some drug crimes. In some counties, as much as “70% of the drug court population were charged with crimes listed in Proposition 47.”  Instead of getting help to tackle their addiction at an early stage, drug addicts are able to take the misdemeanor slap on the wrist.

“It’s a disorder of now, it’s a disorder of compulsions,” Dr. Doug Marlowe, the chief of science, policy and law for the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, told the Times. “Without some substantial stick and carrot, the outcomes are quite poor.”

That’s already come to pass in San Diego County, where one judge has seen defendants take their misdemeanor charge instead of opting for treatment through drug court.

“They said, ‘Nope,'” said San Diego Judge Peter Gallagher, according to the Associated Press. “They’ll go back and take misdemeanor punishment.”

2014: Drop in property crimes

In addition to undermining the state’s drug courts, critics worry Prop. 47 could halt the state’s drop in property crimes. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the state’s property crime rate, despite an uptick in 2013, is near historic lows. “The 2013 property crime rate of 2,665 per 100,000 residents is down 3.9% from 2012 and close to the 50-year low of 2,594 reached in 2011,” PPIC observed in its report, “Crime Trends in California.

That progress continued into 2014. The FBI recently released its preliminary crime statistics for the first six months of 2014. The first half of 2014 is an important statistical milestone in property crime because it’s the last period of data prior to when Prop. 47 took effect.

In all five of the state’s largest cities — from San Diego to San Francisco — there was a drop in the number of property crime offenses reported to law enforcement. Here are the number of property crimes in the state’s five largest cities, ranked by population:

  • Los Angeles: down from 41,993 to 39,916, a decrease of 4.9 percent;
  • San Diego: down from 15,767 to 13,759, a decrease of 12.7 percent;
  • San Jose: down from 13,482 to 12,053, a decrease of 10.6 percent;
  • San Francisco: down from 22,181 to 21,330, a decrease of 3.8 percent;
  • Fresno: down from 11,295 to 10,517, a decrease of 6.9 percent.

As property crimes declined, violent crime rates in the five largest cities have remained flat, with the exception of Los Angeles. The LAPD recently announced that violent crime increased 14.3 percent in 2014.

The numbers that come in for 2015 will be key to how Prop. 47’s reforms are interpreted.

14 comments

Write a comment
  1. Ted Steele, Editor
    Ted Steele, Editor 16 February, 2015, 08:40

    Drug court had the teeth.
    Which is why most defendants did not elect to participate in it.
    The teeth are gone– drug court is dead.

    NOW—- it’s a GREAT idea not to recycle addicts into prison—- but the problem is that new programs are not funded– sooooooo with 47 these clowns are just getting cut loose to the streets—- no treatment for the vast majority….

    I am guessing that the crime stats in a few years will not be good…

    FUND the treatment programs and do this right!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply this comment
    • Rex the Wonder Dog!
      Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 February, 2015, 13:34

      Drug court had the teeth.
      Which is why most defendants did not elect to participate in it.
      The teeth are gone– drug court is dead.

      Marbury v. Madison had teeth.

      Which is why it was the very first case ever decided by the SCOTUS

      The teeth are gone– Marbury v. Madison is dead.

      Reply this comment
  2. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 16 February, 2015, 13:38

    FUND the treatment programs and do this right!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I agree, fund it, because in CA money grows on trees, CA’s roads are paved with gold and we have so much disposable revenue we don’t know what to do with all of it 🙂 Oh, and GED cops are having a hard time living on $100K at age 50 in their “retirement”….

    And we MUST save Marbury v. Madison, the very first case ever decided by the SCOTUS

    Reply this comment
    • Ted Steele, Editor
      Ted Steele, Editor 17 February, 2015, 20:31

      Poodle?

      Are you ok??? lmao

      Reply this comment
    • SD dog
      SD dog 23 February, 2015, 07:21

      Many, many law enforcement professionals have four year college degrees. More and more of them are working on graduate level educations, as opposed to your masters of medical marihuana degree…keep smokin.

      Reply this comment
  3. Dork
    Dork 16 February, 2015, 15:23

    Drug Court, Rehab, Addiction Centers are a bunch of crap anyway, Nobody is going to stop drinking or taking other milder drugs because of a program, they must WANT TO in the first place. Ask Any Alcoholic, may I suggest Ruth Bader Ginsburg after the episode at the State of the Union Show.
    But they made an awful lot of New Gubmint employees.

    Reply this comment
  4. Sick of Politics
    Sick of Politics 16 February, 2015, 15:57

    Prop 47 needs to be repealed as it is having devastating consequences. Drug court and its programs were working!

    Reply this comment
    • Ted Steele, Editor
      Ted Steele, Editor 17 February, 2015, 20:30

      Of course drug court was working— it was bloody tough for defendants—- a looooooong program with state prison as the stick and expungement as the carrot.

      The ratio of drug felon defendants to drug court participators was about 1000 to one, or worse……addicts stay addicted without med intervention. And they commit crime.

      The idea is a good one— but it requires funding—

      Reply this comment
  5. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 16 February, 2015, 18:31

    Make it legal to shoot someone on your own property that is there to rob you or worse.

    Those are results no drug court can accomplish.

    The crime has no consequences.

    Addiction is bad but death is worse. Make the choice easier.

    Reply this comment
  6. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 16 February, 2015, 18:31

    Make it legal to shoot someone on your own property that is there to rob you or worse.

    Those are results no drug court can accomplish.

    The crime has no consequences.

    Addiction is bad but death is worse. Make the choice easier.

    Reply this comment
  7. Mit
    Mit 17 February, 2015, 09:14

    My late husband and I joined in 1995. We did not believe that there wouldn’t be any premium increases. That was laughable.
    The big problem is that the Insurance Commissioner doesn’t
    oversee this program. A lot has been mentioned about a class-
    action suit. I believe that to be a bad Idea as the attorneys’ get the lions share of any settlement.. Recipients will not receive the
    premiums they paid into the plan (pennies on the dollar), and they will no longer have Long Term Care, and will more than likely not be able to purchase another plan because of advanced age, and the price at their current age. If you can find an attorney to file litigation against the State of California for lack of oversight
    that has caused this conundrum along with other parties also,
    to be held liable fine. The fact that they are merely premium collectors pay out very little or no money at all when the policy needs to be activated is outrageous! In summation a class-action
    suit is a very bad idea.

    Reply this comment
  8. Queeg
    Queeg 17 February, 2015, 09:23

    Violent daylight home invasion has increased since the prisons have been thinned of “non violent” offenders.

    Comrades,

    This liberal thingee isn’t working concerning avarice, greed and coveting.

    Sleep with both eyes open!

    Reply this comment
  9. David Inland Valley Drug Free
    David Inland Valley Drug Free 1 March, 2015, 07:46

    The police chiefs association has labled these issues from the begining but were out spent by Governor Brown 50 to 1. If the voters were not lied to this would have never passed. Consequences are a vital part of behavior modification. Without adequete consequences the behavior remains the same.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



John Hrabe

John Hrabe

John Hrabe spends his time traveling the world as a freelance journalist. When he isn’t on an international flight, John writes about California politics for CalWatchdog.com and CalNewsroom.com.

Related Articles

Guards Imprison Gov. Brown

APRIL 12, 2011 By JOHN SEILER Call me a bleeding heart, but I think prisoners should be treated humanely. In

Brown unveils governors’ energy accord

Gov. Jerry Brown announced on Tuesday that California joined a bipartisan, multi-state coalition promoting energy efficiency. Brown has long pursued

Drought War: GOP and Dems in fight over CA water policy

Call it the Drought War. Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is fighting with three Republican U.S. representatives over water policy