Dems’ crime bill strikes right balance

While California’s property and violent crime rates are relatively low measured over a 60-year time frame, they have gone up significantly since the beginning of the pandemic. The public is understandably concerned — and politicians are rushing to address them. The key now is to take a balanced approach rather than just another wild pendulum swing.

Following a crime wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s, California politicians and voters passed myriad tough-oncrime laws. Crime rates hit historic lows before the pandemic-era spikes, but incarceration rates soared. That led lawmakers to embrace criminal-justice reforms that reduced sentences. Just as voters in the 1990s approved tough new laws, voters in the 2010s approved softer ones.

And now the state is looking at toughing its crime laws, driven by high-profile smash-and-grab robberies. The tough-on-crime crowd has Proposition 47 in its sights — the 2014 initiative that reduced some relatively minor felonies to misdemeanors and raised the threshold for a felony charge from $400 to $950. The higher number reflects inflation and remains lower than in most other states.

Critics blame the initiative for the wave of retail thefts and even for hikes in violent crime, even though the former clearly remain felonies and the initiative has nothing to do with the latter. Voters soundly rejected a 2020 initiative that would have made farreaching changes to Proposition 47. This Editorial Board called Proposition 20 an overreaction and argued that these issues demand “a more deliberative and thoughtful approach.”

As we enter another election season, we’re seeing new efforts to deal with crime — and it appears that at least some of the efforts to deal with crime problems are more deliberative and thoughtful than in the recent past. Prop. 47 still has a growing list of vocal opponents, but their initiative

drive for the November ballot, called the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, is more restrained than the 2020 attempt. We’ll look closely at it as the general election approaches.

And in a likely effort to derail legislative calls to revisit Proposition 47, Democratic leaders in the Assembly last week announced what they tout as a groundbreaking effort to rein in the property crime epidemic. Called the California Retail Theft Reduction Act, the proposal is a mixed bag, but stakes out a sensible middle-of-the-road position.

For instance, we agree with its goal of “aggregation.” That enables law enforcement to charge shoplifters with a felony if they make multiple thefts in a day at various stores. The bill would let prosecutors aggregate the multiple thefts rather than applying each one to the $950 limit. That addresses the major concern about Proposition 47 and targets criminal enterprises.

We also appreciate the act’s effort to divert some shoplifters from jail by, in certain cases, referring them to rehabilitation programs. We’re not happy with the requirement that online sellers maintain extensive paperwork to prove that they obtained their goods legally. That imposes an unreasonably large burden on law-abiding citizens.

Overall this is the right approach, as it targets an apparent Proposition 47 loophole without gutting a reform that has many laudable features. It’s hard to strike the right balance, but this bill at least attempts to do.

Re “Biden announces $1.2B in student debt relief” (Feb. 22):

It seems Mr. Biden has not reviewed the Constitution lately. This time, he is trying, for the umpteenth time, to obligate the populace with financial burdens he has no authority to commit; the House of Representatives has the sole authority to initiate measures involving budget obligations. Since the student education loan program does not obligate we the people, he cannot unilaterally transfer that obligation to we the people at large. This is another indication that he is not qualified to continue in office, much less run for another term.

— Robert Carter, Torrance

A fair editorial page

I just wanted to take the time to commend the editorial page for publishing side by side perspectives on the vote for Los Angeles District Attorney in last Sunday’s editorial page by Susan Shelley and Larry Wilson.

It is not often that you see opposing opinions published on the same page in a newspaper, and certainly not in the Los Angeles Times (since there is only one perspective from them.)

Regardless of which way you lean politically, or philosophically, it is refreshing and appreciated to read the editorial pages to help us all weigh as many facts and we can get before making our voting decisions.

— Dennis Heck, Redondo Beach

Re “Poll ranks Biden 14thbest president, and Trump as worst” (Feb. 19):

This survey is not as historical as it is hysterical. I would have placed this article nearer the comic section. These “hysterians” got it absolutely wrong either way though. Biden would be at my top for the most hysterical just beating out Carter. The other way this poll is more hysterical than historical is the fact that it changes so widely year to year. They don’t have quality standards for their rankings? It appears to be just another politically biased survey. Phony funny history coming to a school near you soon.

— Tom Hersh, Newport Beach

Navalny, Snowden, Assange and free speech

The actions by three people who held free speech as a staple to democracy are/were being persecuted by their country’s government. What is the difference from what Navalny was trying to expose in Russia, Snowden’s distrust of what the Obama administration was doing by spying on innocent citizens and Assange exposing the corruption by coveted American institutions in government? Please explain why Navalny is being presented as a martyr for his country, Snowden who will be put into an American gulag if he ever exposes himself to any vulnerability for arrest by the U.S. and the attempts to prosecute Assange for exposing ugly truths by the U.S. government? American

non-elected officials may have more blood on their hands than any Russian oligarch, including Stalin. All in the name of democracy.

— Steve Lucas, Van Nuys

The invisible backpack

Once again someone who has never worked in education thinks they know what happens in a classroom. Dan Walters “Why Do So Many Kids Struggle to Read?” (Feb. 18) seems to think that the right curriculum can solve all the problems that kids bring to school in what is known as the “invisible backpack.” This “backpack” is full of things the teacher cannot see. Things like parental neglect, prenatal stress, learning disabilities, lack of exposure to reading materials, death of a favorite grandparent, the list goes on. The burdens our students bring to school every day result in many of them being dysregulated and not being able to learn. It’s about time we take a second look and realize that a child’s dysregulated nervous system is the true barrier to learning.

— Jennifer Sweeney, Lake Elsinore

State budget deficit

The state of California’s budget shortfall (Feb. 21) is large and growing larger by the day, snowballing to double the amount Newsom will admit to. And this guy wants to take this economic travesty to Washington as president? Good luck with that, slickster.

— William David Stone, Irvine