Policy Details
Property Crime in California-Proposition 47
policybomb_admin
Published 1 year ago
-
Policy Intent:
1. Reduce prison population by refusing to punish crime by incarceration
2. Introduce “social equity” by not punishing criminal behavior when committed by the poor or multi-cultural populations
3. Re-direct incarceration or disciplinary action expenses to fund social programs
Policy Outcome:
The effort to send the message that crime, regardless of the cost, is still prosecuted is untrue. If it is a misdemeanor, it is often dismissed with little to no impact on the criminal.
Criminal Recidivism increased because negative consequences were removed. Theft and property crimes increased dramatically because the negative consequences were so mild they did not deter the crime.
Grocery Stores resorted to locking cabinets containing toiletries, laundry soap, clippers, etc.
Hardware stores placed metal grates across tool, hardware and electronic components displays in the aisle.
Whenever a decision to purchase these items was made, a clerk with a key was called to unlock the cabinet so you could proceed to purchase, often with the clerk escorting you to the register holding the purchase until payment was produced.
Examples persist of thieves adding up the cost of items to make sure they did not exceed $950 dollars before stealing them. Charges are rarely pursued against these criminals due to the time investment and lack of consequences, even if convicted.
Other poor policies combined to enhance the negative impact of proposition 47. For example, the “defund the police” movement removed resources from police departments preventing them from responding to lower-level crimes. Defunded police departments had no bandwidth to take a report if your car was burglarized, requiring the victim to submit an online complaint, a useful exercise only to provide a reference for the insurance claim.
These policies combined to create an ever-increasing cycle of crime that spirals higher annually. Stores, unable to cope with the losses, close. Neighborhoods lose local businesses. The commercial vacancy rates increased, leaving untended property for vagrants and criminals to reside.
The effort to send the message that crime, regardless of the cost, is still prosecuted is untrue. If it is a misdemeanor, it is often dismissed with little to no impact on the criminal.
Criminal Recidivism increased because negative consequences were removed. Theft and property crimes increased dramatically because the negative consequences were so mild they did not deter the crime.
Grocery Stores resorted to locking cabinets containing toiletries, laundry soap, clippers, etc.
Hardware stores placed metal grates across tool, hardware and electronic components displays in the aisle.
Whenever a decision to purchase these items was made, a clerk with a key was called to unlock the cabinet so you could proceed to purchase, often with the clerk escorting you to the register holding the purchase until payment was produced.
Examples persist of thieves adding up the cost of items to make sure they did not exceed $950 dollars before stealing them. Charges are rarely pursued against these criminals due to the time investment and lack of consequences, even if convicted.
Other poor policies combined to enhance the negative impact of proposition 47. For example, the “defund the police” movement removed resources from police departments preventing them from responding to lower-level crimes. Defunded police departments had no bandwidth to take a report if your car was burglarized, requiring the victim to submit an online complaint, a useful exercise only to provide a reference for the insurance claim.
These policies combined to create an ever-increasing cycle of crime that spirals higher annually. Stores, unable to cope with the losses, close. Neighborhoods lose local businesses. The commercial vacancy rates increased, leaving untended property for vagrants and criminals to reside.
PRO:
CON:
< 1 >
What was originally billed as a social "equity" policy turns out to be more about spin or gaslighting the California voter. Why would the politicians be interested in this narrative? By employing a strawman argument suggesting people are wrongly convicted, the bill sponsors weave a story that California can, with the passage of this bill, right the wrongs of a racist system of justice.
If approved, they can reduce the prison population and notch a political victory for closing prisons. What wasn’t discussed was where all those convicted of criminal behavior went. Further, which steps were taken toward criminal rehabilitation necessary to prevent recidivism?
With the adoption of no-bail policies, arrested criminals are released the same day and often recommit crimes. We have all seen the effects: Walmart and Target locking things like deodorant, fingernail clippers, and razors behind glass cases. Home Depot locks their electrical switches and tools as well. All of these require the consumer to call an attendant to open these cases prior to purchasing the items.
Now, it may be premature to state that those released from detention as a result of this law are the reason property crimes and theft dramatically increased since the law was implemented. However, it does not require a large logic leap to identify a correlation.
What is not clear is exactly which social justice programs have been funded from the money saved by releasing criminals under this bill. Who can identify a "greater good" coming from any specific or named program now funded by these monies? That bears investigating. Now that California is $46 billion dollars in debt, these hundreds of millions of supposedly saved dollars fade into a rounding error in the state's accounting books.
test
906