PROP 36

 In 2014, voters passed Prop 47, aimed at reducing CA's overcrowded prisons in part by changing some felony crimes to misdemeanors. One of those changes was raising the threshold for felony shoplifting to $950. Since then, the state has saved a ton of money by not incarcerating as many people, but the crime rate, particularly retail theft, has increased in many counties.

Prop 36 would rollback parts of Prop 47 by allowing felony charges for possessing certain drugs and thefts under $950, if the person has two or more past convictions for certain crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). The prop would also allow the value of property stolen in multiple thefts to be added together, if each is under $950.

As a resident of San Francisco, I have seen A LOT of retail theft. It is outrageous and brazen, and rarely prosecuted. But why? Could it be because store employees are instructed not to engage, out of liability concerns? Is it politics between the police unions and the DA? Is it because of police staffing shortages? Is it the pandemic?

Much has been made of Prop 47 as being the cause of increased shoplifting. But, how much of a calculation are criminals making when stealing items from a store? Are they avoiding expensive items to dodge a felony charge, or are they simply taking what they can? In addition, how is the $950 limit to blame, when 40 other states have higher thresholds to felony charges?

We need to be tougher on prosecuting criminals, but is going back to a pre-Prop 47 approach the smart way to do it? Prop 36 has echoes of the Three Strikes and You're Out law passed in 1994, which caused the state's prisons to become so overcrowded that the Supreme Court stepped in, equating the prison conditions with "cruel and unusual punishment".

Last August, Governor Newsom signed ten new crime bills, many of which obviate the need for Prop36. We should give these bills a chance to work.

Your Political Friend is voting NO