If you were to pay a visit to the Californians Against Prop. 47 Web page, you’d immediately be presented with a banner that rotates between two very alarming claims. The first, displayed on a picture of a young woman crying, asserts, “Prop. 47 weakens the penalty for possession of date-rape drugs” and reminds you that “date-rape isn’t a victimless crime.” The next is a statement from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, reminding you that “people don’t steal guns to add them to their collection – they steal guns to commit other crimes, including murder.” Intense.
Is California’s Proposition 47, which is up for a vote in Tuesday’s election, going to be a vindication for gun-toting consent-haters? This perspective is shortsighted, to say the least. The proposition is a long-overdue attempt to remediate disparities in sentencing, probation and asset forfeiture procedures for certain controlled substances. In short, the proposition takes us in the right direction because it focuses on prevention and rehabilitation, saves the state a substantial amount of money and seeks to make drug sentencing more concrete and objective.
This proposition essentially aims to accomplish three distinct goals, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office: to restructure the way many nonviolent criminals are sentenced, offer the opportunity for resentencing for previously convicted nonviolent criminals and provide additional funds for truancy prevention, treatment and victim services.
In a nutshell, drug possession – excluding possession of cannabis, which will remain an infraction – would be reduced to a misdemeanor. This serves to eliminate the bias the courts have long held against users of certain drugs, such as crack.
Suspects of minority backgrounds end up being disproportionately convicted for possession of drugs, although cocaine, for instance, is used more by whites. The proposition takes power away from the courts to deem a drug violation a “wobbler,” which allows a judge to decide if the violation is a misdemeanor or a felony. The Obama administration and Gov. Jerry Brown have both recognized this disparity in sentencing, leading to the passage of both a federal and state Fair Sentencing Act – in 2010 and 2014 respectively – that diminishes many of these discrepancies in the legal system.
But wait. Isn’t this proposition just going to encourage more people to commit more crimes? Aren’t people just going to consume more drugs now that the consequences aren’t as dire? Is crack no longer wack?
Unsubstantiated sensationalism about the horrors of drugs has, for a very long time, often dictated the way we administer justice to crimes typically perpetrated by people in the lower rungs of our socioeconomic system. It doesn’t take a college degree to understand that these same demographics are the ones overcrowding a woefully administered prison system; according to the Public Policy Institute of California, 5,525 in 100,000 of African American adult males are incarcerated, as opposed to 1,146 for Latinos, 671 for non-Latino whites and 43 for Asians.
Proposition 47 aims to not only correct some institutional disparities in sentencing, but also ease this overcrowding crisis that has long plagued our penal system, especially in California, where the problem is so bad that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger even declared it to be in a state of emergency in 2006.
The supporters of this reform’s measures come from diverse backgrounds. A wide variety of elected officials, district attorneys, judges, education leaders, organized labor leaders, community organizers, newspapers and spiritual leaders have all come out in support of Proposition 47. People from countless walks of life, industries and agendas have agreed that this kind of sentencing reform is long overdue.
Who opposes this reform? If we again look on the Californians Against Prop. 47 page, we might see a recurring trend. The California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, California Narcotic Officers’ Association and, of course, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which is basically a labor union for police officers in Los Angeles.
While it may be cynical to make the assertion that organizations will fight legislation that can potentially decrease their budget allocations and personnel size, the argument at least deserves a certain amount of consideration. Law enforcement officers serve a vital and appreciated role as the protectors of our communities. Dictating public policy and using scare tactics for self-preservation should not be part of this role.
Don’t let hysteria and fearmongering dissuade you. This proposition has the potential to create long-lasting implications for the American penal system in terms of shifting from a focus of retribution to one of rehabilitation and true and equitable justice. Vote “yes” on Proposition 47.
Navarro is a fourth-year political science student and the president of the Political Science Student Organization.
Great article. Prison population in the US has been a major problem since the drug war began in the 1970s. Although this proposition is far from what we need to be doing as a nation to shift criminal punishment to criminal rehabilitation, at least it’ll ensure people that make dumb mistakes won’t get into the criminal justice system and can just move on with their lives.