Examine individual changes

'{{Short description|measure reducing the criminal penalties on many nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors}} {{Infobox referendum | name = Proposition 47 | title = Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, also called The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act on the ballot information guide. | location = [[California]] | date = {{Start date|2014|11|04}} | yes = 4,238,156 | no = 2,871,943 | total = 7,513,972 | map = 2014CaliforniaProposition47.svg | mapdivision = | notes = Source: California Secretary of State<ref>{{cite web |url=http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2014-general/pdf/2014-complete-sov.pdf |title=Statement of Vote, November 4, 2014 General Election |work=California Secretary of State |accessdate=September 1, 2015 }}</ref> }} '''Proposition 47''', also known by its ballot title '''Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute''', was a referendum passed by voters in the state of [[California]] on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the '''Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act''' (originally titled by California Attorney General [[Kamala Harris]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014) |title=California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014) |work=Ballotpedia |accessdate=November 18, 2014 }}</ref> It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized. ==Effects== The measure's main effects were to convert many nonviolent offenses, such as drug and property offenses, from felonies to misdemeanors. These offenses include shoplifting, writing bad checks, and drug possession. The measure also required that money saved as a result of the measure would be spent on "school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health, and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail."<ref>{{cite web |title=Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute. |url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/ |work=California Secretary of State |accessdate=November 18, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111213742/http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/# |archive-date=2014-11-11 |url-status=dead |df= }}</ref> The measure included exceptions for offenses involving more than $950 and criminals with records including violence or sex offenses.<ref name=stjohn/> For example, forgery had previously been a "wobbler" offense that could be charged by the prosecutor as a misdemeanor or a felony. Now with the passage of Proposition 47, prosecutors cannot charge a forgery involving less than $950 as a felony unless the defendant has a criminal record.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/pdf/text-of-proposed-laws1.pdf | title=Text of Proposition 47 | accessdate=July 20, 2017}}</ref> The measure both affects future convictions and allows for people currently incarcerated for crimes covered by the measure to petition for re-sentencing.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://psmag.com/news/can-proposition-47-solve-californias-problem-mass-incarceration-93135 | title=Can Proposition 47 Solve California's Problem With Mass Incarceration? | work=Pacific Standard | date=October 29, 2014 | accessdate=November 26, 2014 | author=Pishko, Jessica}}</ref> In November 2015, a report by the [[Stanford University]] Justice Advocacy Project authored by the co-author of Proposition 47, found that Proposition 47 had reduced the state's prison population by 13,000 and that it would save the state about $150 million that year.<ref name=stanford/> For impact on crime rates, see below. The provision allowing past offenders to petition for resentencing would have [[sunset provision|expired]] on November 4, 2017, though governor [[Jerry Brown]] approved a bill that extended the deadline to November 4, 2022.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pe.com/2016/09/29/new-law-gives-felons-more-time-to-get-record-changed-under-prop-47/|title=New law gives felons more time to get record changed under Prop. 47|work=The Press Enterprise|date=September 29, 2016|accessdate=March 10, 2018 | author=Rokos, Brian}}</ref> ==Support== The measure was endorsed by the editorial board of the ''[[New York Times]]'', which praised it as a way to reduce overcrowding in the state's prisons.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/prop-47-could-take-the-state-a-step-further-in-reducing-overcrowding.html?_r=0 | title=California Leads on Justice Reform | work=New York Times | date=October 30, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Editorial Board}}</ref> It was also endorsed by the editorial board of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', which wrote that the measure was a "good and timely measure that can help the state make smarter use of its criminal justice and incarceration resources."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-proposition-47-20141007-story.html | title=Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 47 | work=Los Angeles Times | date=October 6, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Times Editorial Board}}</ref> The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] also supported the measure and donated $3.5 million to support it.<ref name=aljazeera>{{cite web | url=http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/14/california-feloniestomisdemeanors.html | title='Walking out of jail': Prop 47 frees felons with downgraded charges | work=Al Jazeera America | date=November 14, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=El Nasser, Haya}}</ref> Prominent individual supporters included [[Jay-Z]] and [[Newt Gingrich]].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/california-prop-47-mass-incarceration/382372/ | title=Californians Vote to Weaken Mass Incarceration | work=The Atlantic | date=November 5, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Ford, Matt}}</ref> ==Opposition== Opponents of the measure include Mark A. Peterson, the District Attorney of [[Contra Costa County]], who wrote before its passage that the measure "would make our neighborhoods and schools less safe".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_26837963/guest-commentary-prop-47-will-make-our-neighborhoods | title=Guest commentary: Prop. 47 will make our neighborhoods less safe | work=Contra Costa Times | date=October 31, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Peterson, Mark}}</ref> It was also criticized by [[Nancy O'Malley]], the District Attorney of [[Alameda County]], who said it would "expose Californians to significant harm" and called it a "Trojan horse".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Vote-No-on-Prop-47-Measure-ends-effective-crime-5768101.php | title=Vote No on Prop. 47: Measure ends effective crime intervention | work=San Francisco Chronicle | date=September 19, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=O'Malley, Nancy}}</ref> Among the most prominent arguments made against the law was that possession of the date-rape drug [[Rohypnol]] would, under the law, be punished as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which critics described as a "slap on the wrist".<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-prop-47-roofies-date-rape-20141028-story.html | title=What does California's Proposition 47 have to do with date rape? | work=Los Angeles Times | date=October 29, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Greene, Robert}}</ref> Critics also argued that not being able to use incarceration to force drug users into treatment would make it more difficult for drug users to enter into a treatment program.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/nov/10/proposition-47-crime-california-drugs/ | title=Prediction: California crime wave coming | work=San Diego Union-Tribune | date=November 10, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Editorial Board}}</ref> ==Impact on crime rates== As of 2014, the outcome of the measure was still uncertain with respect to future crime rates, but Hayley Munguia of [[FiveThirtyEight]] has argued that in three of other four states—[[Arkansas]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Texas]]—that passed similar laws, crime rates decreased afterward.<ref name=yorker>{{cite web | url=http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/will-california-lead-way-prison-reform | title=Will California Again Lead the Way on Prison Reform? | work=The New Yorker | date=November 7, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Vara, Vauhini}}</ref> It also remains uncertain whether the measure will actually keep people out of prison, though the Legislative Analyst's Office has concluded that it will decrease the state's prison population by "several thousand" inmates.<ref name=yorker/> It has been estimated that the measure will affect about 40,000 felony convictions per year, which would be reduced from felonies to misdemeanors, representing about one-fifth of annual convictions in California.<ref name=stjohn>{{cite web | url=http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-ff-pol-proposition47-20141012-story.html | title=Prop. 47 would cut penalties for 1 in 5 criminals in California | work=Los Angeles Times | date=October 11, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=St. John, Paige}}</ref> The [[California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation]] has estimated that under the measure, almost 4,800 state prisoners are eligible to petition for resentencing.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26910175/santa-clara-county-hears-first-crop-post-prop | title=Santa Clara County hears first crop of post-Proposition 47 crime-reduction petitions | work=San Jose Mercury News | date=November 11, 2014 | accessdate=November 26, 2014 | author=Kurhi, Eric}}</ref> Several commentators contrasted Proposition 47 with the [[three-strikes law]] that had been passed in California two decades earlier.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2014/10/21/357737263/california-proposition-re-evaluates-approach-to-crime | title=California Proposition Re-evaluates Approach To Crime | work=NPR | date=October 21, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Mcevers, Kelly}}</ref><ref name=wapo>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/31/california-voters-seem-ready-to-end-the-states-tough-on-crime-era/ | title=California voters seem ready to end the state's 'tough on crime' era | work=Washington Post | date=October 31, 2014 | accessdate=November 16, 2014 | author=Chokshi, Niraj}}</ref> Before the initiative passed, political science professor Thad Kousser said that it "would officially end California's tough-on-crime era" if it was passed.<ref name=wapo/> In 2015, the ''Los Angeles Times'' reported that "law enforcement officials and others have blamed Proposition 47 for allowing repeat offenders...to continue breaking the law with little consequence."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-prop47-anniversary-20151106-story.html | title=Unintended consequences of Prop. 47 pose challenge for criminal justice system | work=Los Angeles Times | date=November 6, 2015 | accessdate=December 5, 2015 | author=Chang, Cindy}}</ref> Also that year, a spokesman for [[George Gascón]], the district attorney of [[San Francisco]], said that the law "has made it easier for drug offenders to avoid mandated treatment programs." The mayor of Los Angeles, [[Eric Garcetti]], has also suggested that the law may explain why his city's crime rates went from decreasing to increasing.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/16/in_the_wake_of_proposition_47_california_sees_a_crime_wave_127780.html | title=In the Wake of Proposition 47, California Sees a Crime Wave | work=RealClearPolitics | date=August 16, 2015 | accessdate=December 5, 2015 | author=Saunders, Debra}}</ref> In a 2015 story in the ''[[Washington Post]]'', the police chief of [[San Diego]], [[Shelley Zimmerman]], described Proposition 47 as "a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card." She and other police chiefs also expressed concern about the increasing phenomenon of "frequent flier" criminals–people who exploit Proposition 47 to commit crimes. For example, one criminal allegedly brought a calculator into a store to avoid stealing more than $950 worth of goods.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/ | title=In California, Prop 47 has turned into a 'virtual get-out-of-jail-free card' | work=Washington Post | date=October 10, 2015 | accessdate=February 5, 2016 | author=Saslow, Eli}}</ref> The ACLU responded by releasing a report saying that those who linked Proposition 47 and crime were "making irresponsible and inaccurate statements."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-proposition-47-aclu-report-20151110-story.html | title=ACLU faults California law enforcement response to Prop. 47 | work=Los Angeles Times | date=November 10, 2015 | accessdate=December 5, 2015 | author=Poston, Ben}}</ref> The director of the Stanford Justice Advocacy Project and co-author of Proposition 47, Michael Romano, said in November 2015 that, with respect to Proposition 47, "In the long term, this reallocation of resources should significantly improve public safety". Mr. Romano authored a study supporting his conclusion.<ref name=stanford>{{cite web | url=http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/prison-early-release-110215.html | title=California's early release of prisoners proving effective so far, Stanford experts say | work=Stanford University | date=November 2, 2015 | accessdate=February 5, 2016 | author=Parker, Clifton}}</ref> A March 2016 report released by the [[Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice]] concluded that it was still too early to determine whether Proposition 47 had an effect on California's crime rates.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cjcj.org/news/10205 | title=New Report! Is Proposition 47 to Blame for California's 2015 Increase in Urban Crime? | work=[[Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice]] | date=March 15, 2016 | accessdate=May 11, 2017 | author=Males, Mike}}</ref> A study in June 2018 by the [[Public Policy Institute of California]] found evidence that Proposition 47 may have contributed toward an uptick in larceny and auto break-in thefts.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bird |first1=Mia |last2=Lofstrom |first2=Magnus |last3=Martin |first3=Brandon |last4=Raphael |first4=Steven |last5=Nguyen |first5=Viet |title=The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism |url=https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/r_0618mbr.pdf |website=Public Policy Institute of California |publisher=Public Policy Institute of California |accessdate=9 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Bob |last=Egelko |title=Prop. 47 is linked to increase in auto thefts, study says |website=San Francisco Chronicle |date=12 June 2018 |accessdate=13 July 2019 |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Prop-47-is-linked-to-increase-in-auto-thefts-12989137.php}}</ref> However, a 2018 study from the University of California, Irvine, maintains that Prop 47 was not a “driver” for recent upticks in crime, based upon comparison of data from New York, Nevada, Michigan and New Jersey (states that closely matched California’s crime trends) 1970 to 2015, but that "what the measure did do was cause less harm and suffering to those charged with crime."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.uci.edu/2018/03/07/proposition-47-not-responsible-for-recent-upticks-in-crime-across-california-uci-study-says/|title=Proposition 47 not responsible for recent upticks in crime across California, UCI study says|date=March 7, 2018}}</ref> Numerous media outlets have continued to report an increase in retail theft related to the passage of Prop 47. Large retailers Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies reported in 2016 that shoplifting increased from 15 percent to (in some cases) over 50 percent since voters approved Proposition 47.<ref>{{cite news |title=Spike In Shoplifting Blamed On California Prop 47’s Reduced Penalties |url=https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/05/14/shoplifting-california-prop-47-reduced-penalties/ |accessdate=19 December 2019 |publisher=CBS Broadcasting Inc. |date=May 14, 2016}}</ref> The Los Angeles Times reported in 2017 that the California Supreme Court ruled that a person convicted of a felony for stealing a car may have that conviction reduced to a misdemeanor if the vehicle was worth no more than $950,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dolan |first1=Maura |title=California Proposition 47 makes stealing a car worth $950 or less a misdemeanor offense, court rules |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-car-theft-court-20171130-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times |publisher=Los Angeles Times |accessdate=19 December 2019}}</ref> and in 2018 that researchers found Prop 47 contributed to a jump in car burglaries, shoplifting and other thefts.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Associated Press |title=Thefts rise after California reduces criminal penalties, report says |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-thefts-rise-california-20180613-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times |publisher=Los Angeles Times |accessdate=19 December 2019}}</ref> The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2018 that that Prop. 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate of about 9 percent compared to the 2014 rate. <ref>{{cite news |last1=Egelko |first1=Bob |title=Prop. 47 is linked to increase in auto thefts, study says |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Prop-47-is-linked-to-increase-in-auto-thefts-12989137.php |accessdate=19 December 2019 |agency=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=Hearst |date=June 12, 2018}}</ref> By 2019, organized retail theft was on the rise; police attributed it to Prop 47.<ref>"After searching police reports and arrest records, CBS13 found that while the rate of these grab and dash crimes is on the rise, the rate of arrest is down. We turned to law enforcement and the retail industry for answers. Both blame a California law intended to make “neighborhoods safe.”" https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/25/grab-and-dash-thefts-rise-police-blame-law/</ref> ==References== {{Reflist}} [[Category:Prison reform]] [[Category:2014 California ballot propositions]] [[Category:November 2014 events in the United States]]'