As California faces a rise in crime, the debate on how to tackle this issue has become divisive.
Proposition 36, also known as the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, seeks to impose stricter penalties for nonviolent drug offenses and theft, along with new sentencing enhancements.
Proponents of Prop. 36 argue that it is essential for restoring safety and health in communities. However, critics warn that it could lead to overcrowded prisons and disproportionately impact marginalized groups.
If approved, Prop. 36 would reverse the effects of Proposition 47, a significant sentencing reform passed nearly a decade ago. Prop. 47 has helped decrease the prison population, lower recidivism rates, and save California more than $800 million.
John Malpede, the artistic director of the Los Angeles Poverty Department, founded the organization to address the displacement crisis in LA’s Skid Row.
He firmly opposes Prop. 36, advocating for community-based rehabilitation instead of incarceration.
Safety is created by building community. Sending people to jail doesn’t make it safer. We need to engage everyone and seek solutions, Malpede said.
Supporters of Prop. 36 contend that tougher penalties are crucial to deter crime, particularly targeting repeat offenders who exploit existing laws. Kathryn Barger, an LA County supervisor, stated, This measure is aimed at those committing smash-and-grab thefts and those who manipulate the system.
According to the Yes on 36 campaign, a coalition of businesses and advocacy groups, California small businesses suffered nearly $9 billion in losses due to theft in 2022, factoring in increased security costs and lost sales.
Prop. 36 aims to improve public safety by altering key drug and theft laws. It would classify repeat theft misdemeanors as felonies, extend sentences for major drug sales and group crimes, and mandate prison time for certain drug felonies instead of county jail.
The proposition would also introduce a new court process for individuals repeatedly convicted of drug possession, allowing them to receive treatment instead of harsher penalties, with charges dropped upon successful completion. If treatment is unsuccessful, individuals could face up to three years in prison.
Additionally, those convicted of selling drugs would be warned they could face murder charges if their products result in death.
Critics argue that Prop. 36 fails to address the underlying causes of crime, such as access to healthcare, housing crises, and poverty, and that it will disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
California voters will decide on November 5 whether to approve this contentious measure. Supporters have raised over $10 million in funding, with backing from companies like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot.
A Public Policy Institute of California poll indicates that 71% of likely voters favor the proposition.
However, the Vera Institute of Justice warns that increased penalties for retail theft could harm Latino and Black communities disproportionately.
They assert that passing the proposition would lead to a significant rise in the prison population and exacerbate existing racial disparities in the justice system, particularly affecting vulnerable groups such as children and young adults.
Malpede reflects on the historical impact of the war on drugs and mass incarceration, arguing for a more compassionate approach to helping individuals rather than resorting to punitive measures that perpetuate human rights abuses in prisons.
Before the implementation of Prop. 47, California’s prisons were operating at nearly double their intended capacity, prompting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2011 that deemed these conditions unconstitutional.
Prop. 47 has allowed the state to redirect funding toward drug treatment, mental health services, and homelessness prevention, benefiting nearly 22,000 individuals and moving them away from incarceration toward community support programs.
Opponents, however, contend that Prop. 47’s loopholes have enabled individuals to avoid consequences for their actions.
Barger expressed concerns that the reclassification of drug crimes has contributed to an increase in fentanyl and other drugs.
All roads lead back to providing better services for those in the justice system early on, she said, believing that Prop. 36 could better serve community needs related to addiction and treatment.
Barger highlighted LA County’s investment in prevention services through Measure J, which mandates allocating 10% of local funds to social services like housing and mental health care.
She emphasized that passing Prop. 36 would provide vital support to the community.
Despite Barger’s personal support for Prop. 36, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors officially opposed it, citing concerns that it would undermine equity and public safety efforts.
The board stated, Prop. 36 poses a risk to our core values and disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, threatening the progress made in justice reform.
Chelsea Byers, the vice mayor of West Hollywood, also opposes the measure, advocating for supportive services over criminalization.
She noted that individuals struggling with mental health and addiction need access to treatment, not prison.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that Prop. 36 could divert tens of millions in funding for housing, mental health, and school programs.
The ACLU of Southern California predicts that increased incarceration for low-level offenses could cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion annually, on top of the existing $27 billion allocated to the state’s jails, courts, and prisons.
As a city, we value inclusion and diversity, and our public dollars should be invested in services that benefit everyone.
I view Prop. 36 as a setback to progress because it doesn’t prioritize the best interests of our community, Byers said.