Time to admit criminal reform measure not working

The Bay Area News Group editorial board recently lauded Californians for taking a “leap of faith” in 2014 and voting to reduce the penalties for certain crimes.

From a police chief’s perspective, Proposition 47 has been an ill-conceived measure that has increased property crimes, decreased participation in proven drug rehabilitation programs and is now the subject of a ballot initiative to address the unintended consequences.

It’s only working for criminals who are walking away from burglaries, illicit drug possessions and fraud without facing meaningful consequences. For heroin addicts who are shooting up in broad daylight at BART stations know they will receive little more than a ticket and have no incentive to attend proven drug treatment programs that once helped address the issues of addiction. And for repeat shoplifters, bad-check writers and people who commit forgery.

The rise in auto break-in cases is so significant that San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón proposed legislation to increase the crime classification of theft from a vehicle from a misdemeanor to a felony. Also on the rise are commercial burglaries, which under Prop. 47 are now considered shoplifting cases. This has been a boon for professional thieves.

While the increase in reported larceny is 9 percent, this is actually a gross misrepresentation: Retailers and grocers are frustrated with the rise in thefts. They’ve expressed to us that the losses they’ve faced are far greater than what is officially reported. In fact, according to the California Department of Justice, the value of stolen goods in 2016 was $500 million higher than pre-Prop. 47 — a staggering amount.

Prop. 47 was supposed to reduce recidivism rates, and if you look sideways at the numbers, it almost looks as though it succeeded. In reality, it’s not that fewer people are returning to a life of crime, it’s that police officers are making fewer arrests and district attorneys’ offices are unable to prosecute the crimes being committed.

Attributing a decline in recidivism rates to Prop. 47 is like buying bigger pants and then claiming to have lost 40 pounds.

Prop. 47 has reduced the prison population, that much is true. But it hasn’t given newly released men and women much incentive, direction or support to improve their lives. Community safety “takes a village.” Unfortunately, Prop. 47 has reduced the time an offender is on supervised probation, effectively preventing an officer from being part of the “village” that helps to keep an offender on the path toward becoming a productive member of society.

It has also removed any incentive for an addict to participate in one of several highly successful California court diversion programs that strike at the root of addiction and have, for two decades, helped many people turn their lives around. Finally, the projected savings under Prop. 47 ended up being a fraction of what voters were promised, meaning that rehabilitation alternatives remain grossly insufficient.

We all want fairer laws and a safer community. But Prop. 47 has accomplished neither. Instead, it has increased crime, decreased penalties and provided fewer incentives for criminals to reform and for drug addicts to receive the help they need.

Prop. 47 is not working, and it’s time to admit that.