California Proposition 47, The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, was approved by voters in 2014. Its boldest and most controversial aspect was to reclassify a number of nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Among these were shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and personal use of most illegal drugs. In general, the value of the stolen property had to be below $950.
Most law enforcement officials opposed the measure, although then-California Attorney-General Kamala Harris supported it, and even came up with the name (which is pretty misleading) and ballot summary. Here in Alameda County, District Attorney Nancy O’Malley wrote a powerful op-ed piece in the Sept. 19, 2014 San Francisco Chronicle in which she urged voters to “Vote No on Prop 47.” Calling it a “Trojan horse,” she predicted that passage would “expose Californians to significant harm.” Prop 47’s drug provisions also raised alarm bells. The law, if passed, would result in “the early release of thousands of criminals [many of them repeat offenders] now behind prison bars…many of [whom] will be drug offenders,” warned the San Diego Union-Tribune, in an editorial headlined “Prediction: California Crime Wave Coming.”
Liberal outlets supported the measure. The New York Times, in their own editorial published shortly before election day, hailed Prop 47 with the banner headline, “California Leads on Justice Reform.” (The link to this is paywalled. Sorry.) But less than two years later, when Prop 47 had been implemented and its baleful effects made manifest, the same newspaper ran an article with this headline: “California Crime Initiative Leads to Lowest Arrest Rate in State’s History.” In 2015, the article noted, “The number of felony arrests in California [due to Prop 47] plummeted 28.5%...That resulted in 52,000 fewer arrests overall, and the lowest arrest rate since record-keeping began in 1960.”
It looked like the Union-Tribune’s prediction had come true: as fewer bad guys were arrested, a crime wave hit California. And Nancy O’Malley’s prediction also was realized: Californians were indeed exposed to significant harm.
Recently, Prop 47’s problems have been underlined by the smash-and-grab retail thefts that hit the Bay Area this winter. Most of the thieves stole less than $950 worth of merchandise, and thus were convicted of misdemeanors, in the rare cases they were arrested and convicted of anything. This caused Sacramento County’s District-Attorney, Anne Marie Schubert, to call Prop 47 “the biggest con job in California history.” She added, bitterly, “Criminals have been laughing at us…There’s a clear belief--and very large reality--that there’s no consequences any more to theft…You tell everybody we’re not going to hold anybody accountable and guess what’s going to happen?” The answer, of course, is: Nothing will happen. People will continue to shoplift from stores like CVS or Target all the time, with zero consequences.
Here in Oakland, the Independent Institute, a non-partisan think tank headquartered near the airport, awarded Prop 47 their 5th annual “Golden Fleece Award,” retitling the measure the “Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative.” Although there’s no direct evidence that Oakland’s nonviolent crime rate is directly influenced by Prop 47, it defies logic to think there’s no connection.
It seems to me it’s time for us Californians to do something about Prop 47. Although it was meant in a generous spirit, its effects have not been conducive to public safety. Quite the opposite: it’s the old “Law of Unintended Consequences.” The Legislature in general is prohibited from amending or repealing a Proposition that has been approved by the voters, so they’re unlikely to get involved. Probably the only way to correct Prop 47’s imbalances is to resubmit it to the voters on a future ballot; unfortunately, that would be expensive, and a lot of the media would resist it. But I suspect that, given the opportunity, voters would repeal Prop 47, if they were educated about how harmful it’s been. It’s so ironic, isn’t it? The “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” has made our neighborhoods and schools less safe.
Steve Heimoff