When "Right on Crime" Was Wrong on Crime- California Prop. 47

 

This is the start of a new series of articles regarding the group "Right on Crime."  The purpose of these articles is to address whether this group is truly an expert on criminal justice reform issues.  The question raised is whether Right on Crime is usually wrong on crime.

Right on Crime is a national initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Right on Crime is described as a conservative U.S. criminal justice reform initiative that aims to gain support for criminal justice reform by sharing research and policy ideas, mobilizing leaders, and by raising public awareness. Right On Crime reforms are focused on "reducing crime, lowering costs and restoring victims."   

Therefore, Right on Crime holds itself out as a resource for politicians and legislatures to find conservative approaches to criminal justice reform. Politicians look to groups like Right on Crime to foresee the various possibilties regarding proposals to help politicians evaluate bills.  As an expert, Right on Crime should be able to predict what would be some of the natural and possible consequences for enacting certain criminal justice reform actions.  

The subject of this article is the  ballot initiative that was placed before the California voters in 2004 called Proposition 47.  The bill was called The Safe Neighborhoods And Schools Act.  The legislation was intended to reduce the number of prisoners in California prisons by reclassifying some nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

The act required that certain "non-violent offenders"—described as petty thieves, recipients of stolen property, those who wrote “hot” checks of less than $950, and low-level drug possession offenders— receive misdemeanor, rather than felony, sentences. The initiative also would be made retroactive so that offenders in these categories who were currently serving felony sentences could be re-sentenced at the discretion of the court. 

Right On Crime signatory, B. Wayne Hughes, Jr., was a prominent advocate for the initiative. Hughes argued that if the act passed, the state could save $750 million to $1.25 billion over five years and that these funds could be reallocated to K-12 school programs, victim services, mental health and drug treatment.

Mr. Hughes stated that "As a conservative and a businessman, I know the difference between success and failure."  He argued that the current system was failing miserably at an overwhelming expense, and state lawmakers were kicking the can down the road.

The initiative was passed by the voters and became the  law of California.  An op. ed. in the Los Angeles Times acknowledged the support of Proposition 47 by Right on Crime.  However, in the intervening years, time has not been good for the position of Right on Crime regarding Proposition 47.

The proposition was sold to the voters as a change of certain crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor.  However, in practice, district attorneys  announced that they would no longer prosecute the misdemeanor crimes.  Therefore, the public was told that these actions on the part of the criminals would still be crimes but after the initiative was approved, they became non-crimes.  Right on Crime should have anticipated that this could be a possibility and that if this were to happen it would have a negative impact on public safety and potentially increase crime.

Once district attorneys decided to no longer prosecute these crimes entirely, the criminal element made up of career criminals, organized crime and gangs saw this for what it was- a green light to commit more crime with no consequences.  Crime has been steadily increasing in California for the last several years and recently erupted into organzied smash and grab events taking place like a flash mob group suddenly appearing to dance for a few minutes and then dispurse.  But these flash mobs come in with hammers to smash anything preventing them from grabbing items and then running away.

Even before the smash and grab mobs took off there was already a problem with shoplifters going to Walgreens, CVS Pharmacy and other such stores and engaging in open shoplifting with impunity.  These individuals have become so brazen that one shoplifter appeared on Christmas Eve with a pickaxe in hand daring anyone to try to stop her.

All of these consequences were predictable.  A common sense review of Proposition 47 should have included an analysis of what risks could take place if it was decided to no longer prosecute these crimes instead of prosecuting them as misdemeanors and what could happen if there was no longer any accountability for individuals who decided to shoplift for property less than $950.00.

A self professed expert group such as Right on Crime should have predicted that crime could and probably would increase if California removed any risk of prosecution for certain thefts.  

Another troubling aspect of Right on Crime's lack of analysis of Proposition 47 is there was no discussion of how career criminals and other organized crime groups would take advantage of this situation.

The passage of time has documented several problems with Proposition 47 and the decision to no longer prosecute such crimes.  The passage of the act did not save money.  The passage of the bill did not make California safer.  It turned out that Mr. Hughes did not know the difference between success and failure.  The predictions of Right on Crime were wrong.  Proposition 47 has been a failure.

The problems with Proposition 47 are similar to the problems that certain other bad bail reform initiatives.  In particular, Proposition 47 ties the hands of  judges and law enforcement so that no matter how many times a person is arrested for theft under $950.00, they cannot be prosecuted.  Instead of calling the act The Safe Neighboorhoods and Schools Act, it should have been called the "Get Out of Jail Free Act." 

Right on Crime as a criminal justice resource on reforms that work should have raised these concerns.  At the very least, Right on Crime should have raised questions about what could go wrong.  Instead, Right on Crime joined the rush to support the bill.  Right on Crime argued that California could save as much as $1.2 billion over five years from the changes in the law.  This clearly has not been the case.  Proposition 47 has hurt private business substantially in California.  A string of Walgreens, CVS Pharmacies and other stores have closed because they cannot lose $25,000.00 a day from shoplifters and continue to operate.  The closure of these businesses hurt everyone.  The loss of these tax revenues will hurt local taxing authorities for years to come.  Other businesses have been forced to put many products under lock and key and must be retrieved before any sale.  Businesses are relocating out of the state.  

Proposition 47 was well intended.  It sounded too good to be true and that should have been the first sign of trouble.  Instead, of addressing the risks of passing the bill, Right on Crime fell in line to support the bill.  The thought was that no one should oppose a bill that made people safer and kept fewer criminals in jail.  But that just has not happened.  As early as three years ago, other "experts" have recognized that an unintended consequence of Proposition 47 was a surge of property crime.  For these reasons, Prop 47 won the Independent Institute’s fifth California Golden Fleece® Award, disapproving recognition given to a California state or local agency or government initiative that swindles taxpayers or breaks the public trust.

The award essentially recognizes that the public would not have supported the initiative if it had been presented as an act where certian crimes would no longer be prosecuted.  

Right on Crime as an expert on criminal justice matters should have anticipated these problems or at the least identified them as possibilites and risks.  Right on Crime did not do so. Right on Crime failed California on Proposition 47.  

In other news:

Opinion: It’s Time for Californians to Recognize that Prop. 47 Criminal Justice Reform Failed- CLICK HERE.

California Property Crime Surge Is Unintended Consequence of Proposition 47-  CLICK HERE.

Prop 47 did nothing for neighborhoods except to dramatically increase property crime. It did nothing for schools except for making undelivered promises to increase funding- CLICK HERE.