California Proposition 47, a milestone in criminal justice reform, is under threat. The proposed Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, which seeks to undo important aspects of Proposition 47, would set us back and prioritize punishment over rehabilitation.
Shore upposition 47 It was passed in 2014 to overhaul penalties for lower-level, nonviolent drug and property crimes. Before the reform, prosecutors had broader discretion treat some property crimes as felonies or misdemeanors. The new law made shoplifting under $950 a misdemeanor and relaxed some penalties for other property and drug crimes. It was also applied retroactively, allowing incarcerated people to request their release or sentence reduction.
Proposition 47 worked quickly: in its first year, reduced the state prison population at 4,700, according to an estimate from the Legislative Analyst's Office. Over the past 10 years, reforms have saved California more than 800 million dollars.
In particular, Proposition 47 requires that 65% of those savings go towards treatment. services with the goal of keeping people out of jail. Since 2017 until 2023, the measure provided more than 53,000 accused with services such as mental health and drug treatment, as well as housing, job training, diversion and legal support. These powerful reinvestments spanned 16 counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara. Recidivism plummeted among people who completed a Proposition 47 reentry program (15% compared to other statewide rates typically between 35% and 45%).
Arrests for felony drug crimes have also decreased in the wake of Proposition 47: initial study found that they decreased by approximately 76%, 66%, and 74% for white, black, and Latino Californians and helped reduce racial disparities in arrest rates for drug charges.
However, despite a decade of success, misinformation abounds. The proposed law, sponsored by the coalition Californians for Safer Communities and funded largely by retailers like Walmart, Home Depot and Targetaims to increase penalties for drug traffickers with a new Crime of “serious crime required for treatment” for drug possession after two previous convictions. Offenders would be given the “option” to undergo mental health and drug treatment instead of incarceration, although it is unclear what type of programs they would enter and whether those would even have capacity for new admissions. Additionally, it proposes felony charges for repeat robbery offenders.
The coalition announced last month that it had raised 900,000 signatures, more than enough to present the change to voters on the November ballot. His supporters claim that Proposition 47 has increased property theft, overdoses and homelessness. After some high-profile retail crimes in California, emotions on this issue are running high. But the evidence is stronger.
As a public health researcher, I know that involuntary treatment of the type proposed by this law can perpetuate homelessness and increase overdose risks. Involuntary interventions they are more harmful than voluntary treatment. And not all treatment services are the same. Medically assisted treatment for opioid disorder. It has proven effectiveness, unlike detox and counseling-only strategies.
It is a problem that there are not enough voluntary, research-backed drug treatment services in California. especially since success depends on sustained participation in programs and the deficit subjects people to long waits. But forcing people into treatment, especially without expanding the availability of necessary services, is dangerous and inhumane.
Additionally, serious crimes often lead to homelessness. In the past, punitive measures such as Zero tolerance policies increasing incarceration and homelessness rates, creating significant financial and social burdens. Research we have conducted at UC San Francisco shows that institutionalization often precedes homelessness; One in five participants in a state study became homeless directly from an institutional setting (jail or prison) with little access to prevention services.
And felony convictions create barriers to housing and employment. California Fair Employment and Housing Law offers limited protections for people with criminal records, and incarceration often perpetuates a cycle of unemployment, homelessness, and severed personal connections.
Without a doubt, Proposition 47 can and should be updated with an emphasis on humane policies. The evidence points towards the Housing First approach, which focuses on housing people regardless of their mental health, judicial or other needs and has been shown to promote economic stability. Proposition 47 can make longer-term investments in restorative justice approaches, including transitional reentry services for post-incarceration people and greater access to assisted medical treatment due to substance use. The state can also divert more funds towards poverty reduction measures such as permanent supportive housing which are known to reduce the root causes of crime and theft.
But the proposed Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act does not expand those resources. Instead, it would send California's incarceration rates back up. Even prosecutors in the state They have opposed the measure, arguing that it would regress to failed policies.
For the ballot initiative to move forward, county and state officials must review signatures of support to make sure they come from registered California voters. If that happens, California should reject the proposal and oppose fear-based, evidence-free approaches, just like voters. rejected another attempt to weaken the Propositionposition 47 in 2020. If we don't, our prisons will become more overcrowded and costs taxpayers a lot. We risk losing another generation to the consequences of incarceration that we have finally begun to face.
Meghan Morris is an associate professor of epidemiology at UC San Francisco and a public voices fellow at the Draft opinion. The opinions in this piece are his own.
