8 Comments

I fully agree with this article. What I like about Prop 36 is that it doesn't mandate tougher punishments, but it makes them possible when they make sense (as with repeat offenders).

Expand full comment

I could write a lot more but will limit myself to two comments. While I agree with the thrust of the article's comments, there were several aspects of it that seemed uninformed. I live in Hollywood, California and, due to my concerns over homelessness and crime in my area, have spent the last four years taking a deep dive into what's going.

First off, I question all the studies cited in the article with their speculation on the crime impacts of Proposition 47. That's because they all seem based on reported crime data. The reported crime data is WORTHLESS as to crimes like shoplifting. Here's what really happens in Hollywood if there is shoplifting. First off, there is so little police presence in Hollywood that there is zero chance of a cop being around to stop the shoplifter. Second, there is zero point to reporting the shoplifting, which is done by filing a detailed report online. There is no follow up on these filed reports. So, shoplifting is not reported. I have worked with merchants up and down Hollywood Blvd and when I ask about crime reporting for shoplifting, the uniform answer is no reporting. They will tell me that there has been a massive increase over the last few years. But none of it is in the data.

Net, net, unless a study is based on interviews with a representative sample of storeowners, the data has no value.

The discussion of limited bed capacity being a constraint on treatment for drug addiction (or, as it now is called, substance use disorders) again seemed uninformed. I have been involved in discussions with the head of the LA County unit on substance abuse and he was adamant that on any given day a significant portion of the LA County treatment beds are open. Moreover, many of the treatments for addiction don't require beds. The problem is much more a problem of lack of recognition and motivation. Proposition 47, in a very small way, will lead to more recognition and motivation. For those of you who doubt the limited significance of bed capacity, please keep in mind that one of the most promising treatments for opioid addiction is the long-term use of suboxone and sublocade. These replacement drugs have allowed many fentanyl addicts to resume normal lives on a long-term basis. The trick is to motivate them to try these alternatives. So, there's a lot going on with drug treatment where bed capacity is an irrelevancy.

Expand full comment

Great article!

I had a quick question though. Many people point to the $950 misdemeanor/felony line as the most important factor -- there is a common belief that this is way too high, and felony punishment needs to trigger earlier. Part of it is a problem with brightline rules, as there is a belief that people intentionally steal like ~$900 worth of goods to avoid penalty. But the larger is that people don't like people stealing things in bulk, and you can steal a heck of a lot before hitting $950. I think the Prop solves much of the problem (we don't want to necessarily felony punish someone who steals $20 worth of goods, but we probably want to do that if they do it every day, as the psychic cost of persistently observing disorder is a real cost and that is theft-value-agnostic). But people still really really dislike the $950 limit.

However, in states seen as far more "tough on crime" the felony limit is a lot higher. Texas has it at $2,500, for example. This had led some commentators to argue that the rise in shoplifting is basically a form of social contagion, wherein people realized that it always was pretty easy to get away with shoplifting, and seeing it spread created a permissive cycle (sorta broken windows adjacent). I was curious what your thoughts were on the power of the limit, and where an ideal limit (if any) would be placed?

Expand full comment

My incredibly boring reply is that I don't think we have enough evidence on the effect of varying felony theft thresholds to make a judgement. But that's another reason I like the repeat/high-level offender provisions in prop. 36 — it makes the actual threshold less relevant.

Expand full comment

Yes -- from what I'm seeing on TX, it mainly relies upon a repeat offender provision similar to this one (if you have two prior theft convictions, subsequent ones are automatic felonies).

Expand full comment

The problem in California seems to be Progressive prosecutors and/or judges, who actively refuse to do their jobs. If someone steals merchandise under the threshold, they just don't bother putting the thieves away for their crimes, regardless of how clear the evidence is that they did something that they need to be prosecuted and convicted for. Which leads to a de facto state of legalization of misdemeanor theft: a law not enforced *has no force.*

Expand full comment

Yes, in the original article's defense, I think Charles cut this quote short and that does a disservice to a point that needs to be addressed head-on:

>They admit that California’s shoplifting crisis isn’t about recidivism - ie shoplifters getting arrested, serving short sentences, getting out of jail, and shoplifting again. It’s about low clearance rates - shoplifters never get arrested in the first place. But they argue that longer sentences will help raise clearance rates by convincing police that it’s worthwhile to go after shoplifters.

I don't know what the actual cause is of the low clearance rates, but experience tells me that you're probably correct and prosecutors/judges deserve more blame than the police. If so, there's a culture of not enforcing misdemeanor theft laws that would need to be overcome for repeat-offender provisions to do their work.

Expand full comment

Agree completely!

Expand full comment