Proposition 47 dangerously redefines crime in California

When Proposition 47 was approved late last year in a 60-40 margin, human rights advocates rejoiced. The ballot introduced less severe sentencing for nonviolent crimes, unless the perpetrator has a prior record of “murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes.” Many felonies, such as stealing and personal use of drugs, would be demoted to mere misdemeanors with a less hefty fine. Though Proposition 47 sought to create enormous strides for criminal justice, it nonetheless overlooked many crucial elements in the implementation of social improvement.

The Los Angeles Times followed up the ballot approval by illustrating its harrowing effects in a Feb. 21 investigation. The article opened with Los Angeles Police Department officer Jose Ibarra sifting through a rundown shack. After lifting a sooty mattress, Ibarra found needles and a glass pipe, denoting drug use from the shelter’s owner, a homeless man. And with that, because of recent government modifications, the homeless man was let off without so much as a slap to the wrist. It was obvious that the man, without proper punishment, would continue his drug usage. According to LAPD Sgt. Chris Gomez who was also at the scene, the arrest would have been “a waste of [his] time.”

Keeping drug users and people with minor criminal charges away from prisons can indeed ameliorate many problems in the justice system. The most obvious dilemma is the overcrowding in the American incarceration system. According to the Population Reference Bureau, since 2002, the United States has topped the list for most incarcerations in the world. Many imprisonments are rooted in social inequality; inmates tend to be uneducated and of low socioeconomic status. But eradicating arrests based on such prejudices is only one side of the story. There needs to be the promotion of rehabilitation, which Proposition 47 lacks and which therefore contributes to its short-sightedness.

In doing almost nothing to rectify former criminals’ life-ruining conduct, the state government redefines crime. The Los Angeles Times reported a 30 percent reduction in narcotic arrests in the urban area and a 48 percent reduction in the entire area under LAPD patrol. These numbers, however, are superficial. They do not reflect increased safety, but rather denote the government’s condonement of illegal behavior.

As Sen. Diane Feinstein puts it, “The problem is the definition of ‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ is extremely narrow.” For example, stealing firearms is now placed on the low rungs in the hierarchy of crime, with the “get out of jail” card at only $950. But consider the ramifications. The stolen weapon, especially without the proper qualifications for administration, can bring danger to many surrounding civilians, breaking the peaceful well-being of the community. Proposition 47 has catalyzed bigger, more destructive acts of criminality.

So here’s a proposition for the proposition: Instead of turning a blind eye to crimes in order to not burden the criminal justice system, recognize the issues obstructing safety. Work with repeat offenders instead of letting them go, and implement a system in which people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are not unfairly targeted. Proposition 47 does very little to rid California of crime. Instead, it slaps a Band-Aid on the situation, and calls it a day.

Danni Wang is a sophomore majoring in psychology. She is also the editorial director of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Tuesdays.