Commentary: Contrary to critics, Proposition 47 is not creating more crime in California

Since the 1970s, California has responded to nearly every uptick in crime with longer sentences and more incarceration. In the past, “tough on crime” seemed like a logical choice — even though there was no real evidence showing it made communities safer.

However, decades of experience have revealed more effective ways to protect public safety. With violent crime rates rising again, state leaders now have an opportunity to make better choices. But to do that, they must reject the empty rhetoric of special interests who would repeat the mistakes of the past.

Let us remember how we got here. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered California to cut its prison population, which had swelled from of decades of incarceration-first policies. When the court issued its ruling, California’s prisons were operating at twice their capacity, and appalling conditions resulted in many people dying from medical neglect.

In 2014, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 47, a referendum that reduced the number of people entering prison for low level, nonviolent offenses and redirected the savings to crime prevention and healing. Since then, Proposition 47 has reallocated more than half a billion dollars, including nearly $150 million last year alone. These dollars are going to long-underfunded mental health and substance use treatment, community-based violence prevention, job training, housing support, and other initiatives focused on preventing crime and violence from occurring in the first place.

This nearly $600 million reallocation has provided significant hope and benefit to communities most affected by crime and violence. The investment is, however, only a start. By comparison, California will spend more than $14 billion on prisons next year.

Still, some with an interest in preserving the status quo — including unions representing police, prosecutors, and prison guards — are unhappy with this progress and remain persistent in their efforts to reverse it.

The case they make is appealing in its simplicity. But it does not stand up under scrutiny. Every study done by some of the state’s most respected criminologists — at UC Irvine, UC Berkeley, and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) — has found that Proposition 47 had either no or minimal impact on crime rates.

That should not come as a surprise: a 2017 study by the Pew Research Center found that raising the felony theft threshold in other states had no impact on crime, either. It also bears noting that California’s raised felony theft threshold, at $950, is still lower than that of most other states, including South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and Texas. That means the bar for charging a shoplifter with a felony in California is lower than in most other states. The idea that Proposition 47 or other recent justice reforms have made California some sort of bastion of permissiveness is a myth.

Here’s what is true: the statewide clearance rate for thefts in California is a woeful 8.5 percent. In other words, more than 91 percent of thefts that occur in California are either never reported to local law enforcement or never result in an arrest and conviction of the perpetrator, laying bare the futility of putting all our resources into enforcement and prosecution. We’ve got to get serious about preventing crime from occurring in the first place, and Proposition 47 is showing us the way.

Most California voters, to their credit, understand that reform — and Proposition 47 in particular — is not the boogeyman some would have you believe. In the most recent election cycle, in November 2020, they soundly rejected Proposition 20, the special interests’ most recent effort to reverse Proposition 47.

For nearly half a century, California has neglected the infrastructure essential to building public well-being. While our prisons grew fat, public health, housing, education, parks, community-based services and more all scraped by on a shoestring.

The criminal justice system is an integral part of our public safety infrastructure. But the safety and well being of our communities shouldn’t rely only on our courts and prisons. If our leaders are serious and smart about addressing our safety challenges, they will prioritize investing more in alternative systems that provide safety, continuity and opportunity for regular Californians. Growing our commitment to these systems is where the future of public safety will be determined.

This story was originally published February 16, 2022 at 12:57 PM.