In deep blue California – including bluest parts of the state – the voters have apparently resoundingly rejected criminal justice reform. Voters in Los Angeles, overwhelming tossed out one-term incumbent DA George Gascon. In Oakland, two years after San Francisco ousted Chesa Boudin, 65 percent of voters so far have agreed to recall Pamela Price.
The statewide voters also appear to have rejected criminal justice reform. As expected, Prop 36, which partially rolls back Prop 47 won overwhelmingly, so far massing 70 percent of the vote for Yes. Meanwhile, even Prop 6, which would have eliminated forced labor in the prisons, with no opposition was failing at this point 55-45.
“The passage of Proposition 36 reflects Californians’ strong desire for safer communities and meaningful solutions to our state’s rising crime, drug addiction, and homelessness crises,” the Yes on 36 campaign said in an emailed statement. “Through stricter penalties for repeat retail theft and organized theft rings, Proposition 36 ensures accountability while also creating a framework to incentivize rehabilitation by expanding access to drug treatment and job training programs, leveraging Medi-Cal and newly funded initiatives under Prop 1.”
However, progressives lamented the outcome.
The Young Women’s Freedom Center noted that Prop 36 was “was a deceptively named ballot measure that employed the threat of incarceration as a deterrent against retail theft “
They charged the arguments in favor of Prop 36, “were made in “bad faith,” suggesting that California is suffering from an increase in retail theft (which it is not) and that tougher penalties for drug crimes will deter addicts from substance abuse (which they do not).”
In fact, they note “research suggests that the enactment of Prop 36 will have the opposite of its intended effect: people who become entangled in the justice system, especially incarceration, suffer “collateral consequences,” like loss of income, inability to find housing, and being barred from accessing supportive services, that keep them trapped in cycles of recidivism with nowhere to turn but the street economy.”
The group added, “We know that the best way to prevent crimes like retail theft and substance misuse is economic opportunity, self-determination, and access to resources — not the criminalization of poverty or addiction.”
Cristine Soto DeBerry of the Prosecutors Alliance, said, “The passage of Prop 36 makes clear that California voters are frustrated – they want real solutions to homelessness, substance use disorder and crime.”
She explained, “It’s disappointing that the proponents of Prop 36 have misled them into believing this initiative will be that solution. What Prop 36 will really do is take us backward, robbing our communities of hundreds of millions of dollars for treatment and crime prevention and cycling more people in and out of prison and jail. Our communities deserve better than playing politics with public safety. “
DeBerry argued, “The success of Prop 36 at the ballot box is not a rejection of reform; in fact, it shows that Californians favor policies prioritizing treatment and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, Prop 36 will fail to deliver the support it promised. There must be accountability when funding in our communities for treatment programs and victim services is cut due to increases in our prison and jail populations as a result of Prop 36.”
She continued, “We respect that the voters have spoken and Prop 36 is now the law, so we will work to minimize the harm we know it will cause.”
I once again have faith in the people of this country, even in deep blue California.
Progressives took things too far and the people have reined them in.
The Vanguard article about it being retail businesses fault that they were getting robbed because they didn’t hire enough employees was absurd. It’s the criminals fault and the criminals should be held accountable. The people have spoken and Prop 36 will make sure that the criminal element will be prosecuted for their theft. Progressive justice doesn’t work.
I’ll just say both Keith and the voters have swallowed the narrative over actual comparative data. The narrative of crime surge (which did happen explainable during the pandemic) took over. The blame was placed on laws like Prop 47 and prosecutors, and persisted long after the crime surge abated. Nevermind that crime rose more in red states than blue ones, more in areas with traditional prosecutors than progressive ones. In the case of both Gascon and Price, murders soared well before they ever took office and in the case of Price, Oakland had no murders in October for the first time in over a decade and yet the voters still overwhelmingly voted to remove her. At the end of the day, videos mattered more than raw data. The funniest thing, we’ve covered court cases extensively in LA, Oakland, SF, and Yolo and if you blinded the locations, no one would ever be able to distinguish between the traditional versus progressive prosecutors. More on this at some point when I’ve actually had sleep.
Yeah, that’s what you and other progressive justice warriors have tried to feed the public. The public has seen things quite differently where even a very progressive blue state like California saw the light and voted out progressive DA’s and policies. I guess CA shoppers having to have a glass cabinet unlocked in order to buy something as essential as laundry soap changed their views.
Your argument is still narrative over data. We can compare crime rates across states and across jurisdictions within California, and clearly the driver is neither state law nor local prosecutorial decisions – which I still would argue, you don’t see much difference across counties in California.
Moreover, what exactly does Prop 36 do to change any of this? All it does it make it possible to charge repeat offenders of retail theft with felonies regardless of the value of the property. But how many people will that impact? I’ve never been able to get an answer from the proponents of the law. For all the complaints that shoplifting is like a ticket (per Reisig), the fact is that DA’s have no probems charging felonies for most of the types of smash and grabs that are drawing attention. Why? Anything organized can be charged as felony conspiracy. Most of the thefts involve more than $950 in property. And often these are not simple petty theft anyway, they involve force or fear which makes them felony robbery. I’ve yet to see state law actual encumber a DA from charging felonies.
I see where London Breed and her progressive policies are also going down to defeat in San Francisco.
Breed wasn’t the progressive in that race. In fact, the people running Laurie’s campaign were aligned with Boudin and Gascon.
Breed was not aligned with the progressives at all…
I remember Breed calling for “Defund the Police” before she changed her tune.
Lurie’s stance on crime:
“Lurie wants to fully staff the police and sheriff’s departments, offer first-responder incentives including rent, child care and housing subsidies, put more officers on foot patrol in high-crime areas and speed up 911 response times. Lurie also wants to shut down open-air drug markets, including using geolocation technology to keep first-time drug offenders out of the Tenderloin.”
Breed supported Prop 36, she appointed Brooke Jenkins who was a leader of the recall against Boudin, you’re not looking at the full picture here. Szabo literally worked for Gascon first as a DA and then as his campaign spokesperson. And then he helped run Laurie’s campaign. Breed was supporters by the police officers association.