On the Ballot: Prop. 36 allows stiffer sentences for theft, drug charges but could be costly
Proposition 36 would reform parts of Proposition 47 that re-classified thefts under $950 and drug offenses to misdemeanors but putting more people in prison could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Ten years ago, voters approved Proposition 47, which re-classified drug possession offenses and thefts under $950 as misdemeanors but now voters are being asked to allow prosecutors to begin charging offenders with felonies or requiring treatment for repeat offenders through Proposition 36.
Prop. 36 is one of the more controversial statewide issues on the Nov. 5 ballot with elected Democratic and Republican leaders, prosecutors and big-box retailers lining up behind the proposition while other politicians, nonprofits and victim advocate groups oppose the issue.
It would allow people to be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony after two theft offenses regardless of whether the items stolen were valued under $950 and would create a “treatment-mandated felony” for repeat drug offenders. Prop. 47 allowed repeat offenders to continue to be charged with misdemeanors if the stolen items were below that threshold.
The changes to drug charges mean people caught for a third time with substances like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine or meth would be given the option to accept treatment to avoid a felony on their record.
It’s unclear how the capacity for more treatment would be created and experts have cast doubt on an already stressed drug and mental health treatment system’s ability to take on more patients. If there is no treatment available, those people could end up with felonies on their record.
Supporters of Prop. 36 say that changes are needed to rein in the “explosion in retail theft” that has led to increased prices and store closures across the state. It would also increase penalties for trafficking large quantities of fentanyl, which has contributed to dozens of overdose deaths in Long Beach annually over the past few years.
“California is suffering from an explosion in crime and the trafficking of deadly hard drugs like fentanyl. Prop. 36 will fix the mess our politicians have ignored for far too long,” supporters wrote in an argument for Prop. 36.
Opponents say that Prop. 36’s passage will lead to wasteful spending by the state on incarceration and divert millions away from mental health, drug treatment and rehab programs. Part of Prop. 47 required savings from not putting people in jail to be diverted to those initiatives.
An analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California estimated that Prop. 47 saved Californians about $800 million since its passage and Prop. 36 would reduce funding to those types of programs by tens of millions of dollars annually if adopted.
Those opposing the measure say that the revisions Prop. 36 would bring are archaic and that the state would be better served investing in preventative measures like affordable housing and mental health treatment rather than punitive measures like jail time.
“Prop. 36 is so extreme that stealing a candy bar could lead to felony charges. It is a gross overreach that brings back 1980s “drug war” style tactics that packed our state prisons with people convicted of low-level drug offenses, harming public safety and damaging families and communities,” opponents wrote in a formal argument against Prop. 36.
The Long Beach City Council punted on an opportunity to back Prop. 36, leading to local business leaders expressing disappointment with the council for not supporting “critical reforms” in the city.
Prop. 36 is expected to raise costs across the board for both the courts system and prisons across California. Prop. 47 largely kept low-level, repeat-offenders out of jail but Prop. 36 would both lengthen some sentences and require prison time to be served in state facilities rather than in county jails.
The fiscal effect of Prop. 36 is estimated to increase state criminal justice costs from “several tens of millions of dollars to low hundreds of millions of dollars” each year, according to an independent analysis.
Because felonies take more time to resolve, local costs for prosecutors and public defenders are also projected to rise.
That, combined with an increased workload for county agencies that would be part of the rehabilitation of those who opt into treatment to avoid felony drug charges, could mean tens of millions of dollars more being spent in Los Angeles County each year if Prop. 36 passes.
We need your support.
Subcribe to the Watchdog today.
The Long Beach Watchdog is owned by journalists, and paid for by readers like you. If independent, local reporting like the story you just read is important to you, support our work by becoming a subscriber.
