With Californians concerned about crime, Prop. 36 promises harsher penalties for drugs and theft

As California grapples with a rise in crime, debate over how to deal with the problem has divided the state. Proposition 36, also known as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, would increase penalties for nonviolent drug and theft offenses and introduce new sentencing enhancements.

Proponents argue it is a necessary step to restore safety and health to communities, while critics warn the proposal will fill prisons and disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

If passed, Proposition 36 would undo Proposition 47, a comprehensive prison and sentencing reform measure. Since its inception nearly a decade ago, it has reduced the prison population, reduced recidivism and saved the state more than $800 million.

John Malpede, artistic director of the Los Angeles Poverty Department, founded the organization in response to a growing displacement crisis in downtown LA's Skid Row neighborhood. Malpede's organization has held performances to raise awareness about prison overcrowding.

Malpede is positioning himself as a clear “no” to this ballot measure. He advocates for community-based rehabilitation instead of incarceration.

“Security comes from community. Taking people out of their community and putting them in prison doesn’t make it any safer,” Malpede said. “The way to make communities safer is to work with everyone … and find solutions.”

Proponents of Prop. 36 argue that harsher penalties are necessary to deter crime.

“This is really aimed at the people who carried out the smash and grabs and individuals who are repeat offenders who used the 47 provision as a loophole and understand how to manipulate the system,” said Kathryn Barger, director of the LA County the Fifth District.

According to Yes on 36 – Californians for Safer Communities, a coalition of companies, advocacy groups and others, California small businesses and stores lost nearly $9 billion in 2022 due to theft and the high costs of increased security, as well as lost sales due to the need to close items set up.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say the measure aims to improve public safety by creating stricter penalties for certain crimes. The proposal would make three changes to primary drug and theft laws and sentencing enhancements: thefts would be made felonies for repeat offenders; Increasing penalties for serious drug sales and crimes committed by groups; and some drug offenses require a prison sentence instead of a prison sentence.

In addition, the proposal would establish a new court system for people repeatedly convicted of drug possession. This process allows them to receive treatment rather than harsher punishments, with the charges dismissed upon successful completion. If treatment is not completed, those affected face up to three years in prison.

Finally, courts should warn those convicted of drug trafficking that they could face murder charges if the drugs they distribute result in a person's death.

But critics argue that Prop. 36 will put marginalized populations behind bars instead of addressing the root causes of crime such as access to health care, multiple housing crises and poverty.

California voters will decide on November 5 whether to pass the controversial ballot measure. Supporters of the petition measure have raised more than $10 million, including money from Walmart, Target and Home Depot.

According to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 71% of likely voters would vote yes.

An analysis by the Vera Institute of Justice, an advocacy group that advocates for an end to mass incarceration, found that proposed increases in retail theft penalties associated with the proposal could disproportionately harm Latino and Black communities. The organization claims that if the proposal passes, there will be a dramatic increase in the prison population as well as an increase in racial disparities within the justice system, which most impact vulnerable populations such as children and young adults.

“The war on drugs and mass incarceration lasted for decades and I think that's only fair… Working with people to improve their lives and get them out of prison should be done over time and not reactively resort to the old. “ Solutions that led to human rights violations in prisons and forced the Supreme Court to address overcrowding. In this respect, it’s a given,” said Malpede.

Before Prop. 47, California prisons operated at nearly double their design capacity. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that overcrowded prisons violated an inmate's right to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment.

Prop. 47 has forced the state to reallocate its funding for drug and mental health treatment and homelessness prevention. According to a state evaluation of the program, this funding enabled nearly 22,000 people to receive services and move them out of prison and into community-building programs.

But opponents say loopholes in Prop. 47 give people relief.

“(When Prop.) 47 came into play, my concern was about drug court and the fact that we were taking away a very valuable tool that had been very successful in combating drug addiction, particularly on the streets, and 47 has it wiped away,” said Barger, the county manager, claiming that the reclassification of drug crimes has led to an increase in fentanyl and other drugs. “All roads lead back to better services for those who end up in our justice system – early.” I believe Prop. 36…will better serve the community when it comes to the issues surrounding drug addiction and the Treating people works.”

Barger highlighted LA County's annual investment through Measure J in prevention services and youth development and said if Prop. 36 passes, that money will provide “appropriate support” to the community.

Measure J passed in 2020 and marks another critical step in LA County's social justice reform efforts. According to the county, the measure calls for 10% of L.A. County's locally generated, unrestricted funding to be allocated to social services such as housing, mental health care and prison diversion programs. The measure prohibits the county from using those funds for jails, prisons or law enforcement.

“We will not criminalize those who have no home. Our goal is to provide teams that provide resources and work to get people into housing…particularly those suffering from addiction or mental illness. I don’t think this will impact those individuals,” Barger said.

Although Barger supports Prop. 36, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took an official position Tuesday to oppose it. The motion states: “The Board of Supervisors has a duty to advocate for policies that promote justice, public safety and economic stability.” Prop. 36 poses a threat to these core values. This action… disproportionately impacts those at risk population groups and threatens to undo important progress in judicial reform.”

West Hollywood Vice Mayor Chelsea Byers personally opposes the proposal and emphasizes the importance of investing in supportive services rather than criminalization. The city has not issued an official statement.

“What's happening is that people who have unmet needs, people who have problems in our community, people who have mental illness or drug addiction… need services and life-affirming interventions in the form of treatment. This would be looking at this problem in a criminalized way and thinking that everyone experiencing these problems is worth a prison sentence,” Byers said.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, Prop. 36 would save tens of millions of dollars annually in funding for housing, mental health and drug treatment, school programs and victim services. The ACLU of Southern California says more people incarcerated for minor crimes would cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion annually, on top of the $27 billion already allocated to jails, courts and prisons across California become.

“As a city, we advocate for inclusion, we advocate for diversity, and we recognize as a city that our public dollars should be reinvested in the best services that help everyone, and that's why I personally see Prop. 36 as…” “It is an affront to progress because it is not about investing best in all people,” Byers said.

This article was produced by Cronkite News at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.