By Kayla Betulius
SAN JOSE, CA — Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen remains a steadfast supporter of Proposition 47, a 2014 reform law praised for reducing overcrowded prisons by lowering penalties for certain non-violent offenses, according to the Bay Area News Group.
However, this stance is now under scrutiny as Prop. 36, a new ballot measure aiming to reverse key elements of Prop. 47, gains traction ahead of the upcoming election.
Prop. 47, endorsed by Rosen and only two other district attorneys in California, reclassified many theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, provided the value of stolen goods did not exceed $950.
The law has been credited with a significant decrease in the state’s prison population. Yet, critics argue that it has inadvertently contributed to a surge in retail theft and drug-related crimes, fueling the push for Prop. 36, wrote Bay Area News Group.
Prop. 36 proposes to eliminate the $950 threshold for theft to be charged as a felony. It seeks to impose harsher penalties for drug-related crimes, particularly those involving fentanyl and other opioids. The measure also introduces a “three strikes” rule, where individuals with two prior theft convictions could face felony charges for any subsequent theft, regardless of the stolen item’s value.
“I supported Prop. 47. I still support it and think it has done many good things,” Rosen told the Bay Area News Group in a recent interview. “Prop. 47 was responding to some issues at the time, including severe prison overcrowding. We don’t want to build more prisons. We need to focus on alternatives to incarceration, especially for theft and drug addiction.”
Rosen acknowledged public concern over the rise in retail theft, often highlighted by viral videos showing brazen shoplifting. However, he argued in the Bay Area News Group interview, Prop. 36’s proposed changes would not address the underlying issues effectively, noting organized retail theft, typically involving large groups stealing goods worth well over $950, can already be prosecuted as a felony under current law.
“The Legislature has allocated millions of dollars to law enforcement to tackle organized retail theft, and we’re seeing progress,” Rosen said to Bay Area News Group. “Prop. 36 is not the solution; it’s a step backward.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed several anti-theft bills into law, including Assembly Bill 2943, which allows prosecutors to aggregate multiple thefts to meet the $950 felony threshold. Despite this, supporters of Prop. 36 argue that these measures fall short of addressing habitual theft and the growing opioid crisis, according to Bay Area News Group.
The campaign for Prop. 36 is gaining momentum, with a recent poll by the Los Angeles Times and UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies showing 56 percent of likely voters in favor of the measure. The initiative would also make it easier to charge drug dealers with murder if their products result in overdose deaths and impose mandatory treatment or prison sentences for drug possession, said Bay Area News Group.
Rosen expressed concerns about the feasibility of increased mandated treatment, especially given the limited availability of treatment facilities in the state’s larger counties. He questioned the effectiveness of punitive measures in addressing drug addiction.
“Mandating treatment without ensuring there are enough treatment beds is not a real solution,” Rosen stated. “And threatening people with jail time? That’s not a deterrent when illegal drugs are readily available in jails.”
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, a key proponent of Prop. 36, acknowledged the challenges but defended the measure as a necessary response to the perceived shortcomings of Prop. 47, arguing harsher penalties are needed to incentivize treatment for repeat offenders, while also allowing district attorneys like Rosen the discretion to continue prosecuting certain cases as misdemeanors if they choose, wrote Bay Area News Group.
Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, voiced her support for Rosen’s stance, criticizing Prop. 36 as a return to outdated punitive approaches that fail to address the root causes of crime.
“It’s a convenient narrative to blame Prop. 47 for every societal issue, from theft to homelessness,” Hollins said. “But relying on incarceration as a catch-all solution is not the answer. We need to invest in mental health and treatment programs that Prop. 47 has helped fund.”
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated Prop. 36 could increase state costs by tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually due to a potential rise in the prison population. While the measure might reduce costs by decreasing crime rates, the extent of such savings remains uncertain, the office said.
Rosen remains skeptical, according to the Bay Area News Group interview, about the long-term impact of Prop. 36, emphasizing that increasing penalties does not necessarily lead to a reduction in crime.
“Before Prop. 47, police response to shoplifting was inconsistent depending on the community, and that hasn’t changed,” Rosen said. “Changing the law won’t magically reduce crime; it’s about addressing the root causes, which Prop. 36 fails to do.”
