Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute. Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug and property offenses. Inapplicable to persons with prior conviction for serious or violent crime and registered sex offenders. Fiscal Impact: State and county criminal justice savings potentially in the high hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State savings spent on school truancy and dropout prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.
Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.[2] It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.
Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
Personal use of most illegal drugs, below a certain threshold of weight.[3]
The proposition was partly repealed by Proposition 36 in 2024.
Effects
In 2010, the California Legislature adopted AB 2372, which made most thefts of a value under $950 misdemeanors, increasing the threshold from $400, which had been in effect since 1982. This was done to keep the definition of felony theft consistent, while adjusting for the effects of inflation. Proposition 47 confirmed this action of the Legislature, and applied it to a few thefts which had not been addressed by the Legislature, primarily auto theft and the theft of some agricultural products. The measure also converted other nonviolent offenses, such as drug offenses, from felonies to misdemeanors.[4]
The measure required that money saved as a result of the measure, would be spent on "school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health, and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail."[5]
The measure included exceptions for offenses involving more than $950 and criminals with records including violence or sex offenses.[6] For example, forgery had previously been a "wobbler" offense that could be charged by the prosecutor as a misdemeanor, or a felony. After the passage of Proposition 47, prosecutors cannot charge a forgery involving less than $950 as a felony, unless the defendant has a prior criminal record.[7]
Proposition 47 was introduced to address prison overcrowding, adopt alternative sentencing methods, and reduce nonviolent offense incarcerations. It reclassified specific offenses—including some theft offenses not previously addressed in AB2372 and certain drug-related charges—as misdemeanors, rather than felonies. It did not eliminate the prosecution of these offenses. Prior to the adoption of AB2372 and the proposition, many instances of shoplifting were treated as misdemeanors. Since most shoplifting cases involve amounts under $400, the enforcement approach did not significantly alter prosecutions before or after the law's enactment.[8]
Contrary to a misconception that circulated on social media, it did not make thefts under $950 no longer criminal offenses, nor would such thefts be left unpunished. To address concerns about organized retail theft, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2021 that increased flexibility for prosecutors; the legislation permits organized retail theft to be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, allowing tailored responses to the issue.[9]
Proposition 47 affects future convictions, and allows for people currently incarcerated for crimes covered by the measure to petition for re-sentencing.[10]
In November 2015, a report by the Stanford University Justice Advocacy Project authored by the co-author of Proposition 47, found that Proposition 47 had reduced the state's prison population by 13,000 and that it would save the state about $150 million that year.[11]
The provision allowing past offenders to petition for resentencing would have expired on November 4, 2017. Governor Jerry Brown approved a bill that extended the deadline to November 4, 2022.[12]
Support
The measure was endorsed by the editorial board of The New York Times, which praised it as a way to reduce overcrowding in the state's prisons.[13] It was endorsed by the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, which wrote that the measure was a "good and timely measure that can help the state make smarter use of its criminal justice and incarceration resources."[14] The American Civil Liberties Union supported the measure, and donated $3.5 million to support it.[15]
Opponents of the measure include Mark A. Peterson, the District Attorney of Contra Costa County, who wrote before its passage that the measure "would make our neighborhoods and schools less safe".[17] It was also criticized by Nancy O'Malley, the District Attorney of Alameda County, who said it would "expose Californians to significant harm" and called it a "Trojan horse".[18]
Among the most prominent arguments made against the law was that possession of the date-rape drug Rohypnol would, under the law, be punished as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which critics described as a "slap on the wrist".[19] Critics also argued that not being able to use incarceration to force drug users into treatment would make it more difficult for drug users to enter into a treatment program.[20]
Efforts are underway to counteract the unintended consequences brought about by Proposition 47. Assemblyman Jim Cooper and Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert advocate for Assembly Bill 16, a ballot initiative to resolve some of these negative effects. If the bill gathers sufficient support, Californian voters can amend the law. This proposed initiative suggests that individuals convicted of a third theft involving property valued at $250 could face felony charges. California's business community has criticized the state's criminal justice policies, particularly Proposition 47, which reclassified certain crimes, like theft of items under $950, from felonies to misdemeanors. (This is based upon a continuing misunderstanding of the effect of Prop. 47. Should the proposition be repealed, the change made by the Legislature in 2010 would still be in effect.) They claim that this adjustment has led to an increase in repeated shoplifting offenses, creating a crisis for retailers, since the adoption of Prop. 47. (Significantly, no such claim was made after the adoption of AB2372 several years prior.) Business leaders believe that the lenient approach has encouraged shoplifters and drug addicts to commit crimes with minimal consequences.[9]
Rachel Michelin, the President of the California Retailers' Association, highlights the unintended outcomes of Proposition 47. While the law intended to decrease incarceration rates and offer alternative support for offenders, theft-related crimes have resulted in a rise. Thieves frequently target items below the $950 threshold, unbothered by the repercussions. Many retailers have had to secure high-theft items to prevent further losses. These policies have contributed to California ranking among the hardest-hit states for retail theft, causing frustration and safety concerns for business owners, employees, and customers. In some instances, clashes between retail employees and thieves have escalated into violence, even resulting in fatalities.[21]
Democratic Assemblymember Rudy Salas of Bakersfield introduced a bill to reverse a significant aspect of Prop. 47 by lowering the felony threshold for petty theft and shoplifting back to $400. Salas argues that Prop. 47's weakening of theft laws has triggered unintended consequences, and believes California voters are prepared to address this issue. Salas's move contrasts with the perspectives of prominent Democrats like Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, who have downplayed the connection between Prop 47 and the surge in organized retail crime. Salas's bill could resonate with GOP voters, many of whom attribute the rise in theft and crime to Prop. 47. Responding to Salas's bill, Republican state lawmakers proposed repealing Proposition 47, highlighting the ongoing debate and division surrounding the measure's impact on crime and public safety.[22]
In 2015, the Los Angeles Times reported that "law enforcement officials and others have blamed Proposition 47 for allowing repeat offenders...to continue breaking the law with little consequence."[23] Also that year, a spokesman for George Gascón, the district attorney of San Francisco, said that the law "has made it easier for drug offenders to avoid mandated treatment programs." The mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, has also suggested that the law may explain why his city's crime rates went from decreasing to increasing.[24]
In a 2015 story in The Washington Post, the police chief of San Diego, Shelley Zimmerman, described Proposition 47 as "a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card." She and other police chiefs also expressed concern about the increasing phenomenon of "frequent fliers" – people who exploit Proposition 47 to commit crimes. For example, one criminal allegedly brought a calculator into a store to avoid stealing more than $950 worth of goods.[25] The ACLU responded by releasing a report saying that those who linked Proposition 47 and crime were "making irresponsible and inaccurate statements."[26]
In November 2015, the director of the Stanford Justice Advocacy Project and co-author of Proposition 47, Michael Romano, said that with respect to Proposition 47, "In the long term, this reallocation of resources should significantly improve public safety". Romano authored a study supporting his conclusion.[11]
A March 2016 report released by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, concluded that it was still too early to determine whether Proposition 47 had an effect on California's crime rates.[27]
A June 2018 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found evidence that Proposition 47 may have contributed toward an uptick in larceny and auto break-in thefts.[28]:2[29] The study indicates it found a decline in recidivism and no evidence of an increase in violent crime linked to Proposition 47.[28]:2
A 2018 study from the University of California, Irvine, maintains that Prop 47 was not a "driver" for recent upticks in crime, based upon comparison of data from 1970 to 2015, in New York, Nevada, Michigan and New Jersey, states that closely matched California's crime trends, but that "what the measure did do was cause less harm and suffering to those charged with crime."[30]
Numerous media outlets have continued to report an increase in retail theft related to the passage of Prop 47. In 2016, large retailers Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies reported that shoplifting increased, by from 15% to as much as over 50% in some cases, since voters approved Proposition 47.[31] In 2017, the Los Angeles Times reported that the California Supreme Court ruled that a person convicted of a felony for stealing a car may have that conviction reduced to a misdemeanor if the vehicle was worth no more than $950.[32] In 2018, researchers found that Prop 47 contributed to a jump in car burglaries, shoplifting and other thefts.[33] In 2018, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop. 47 led to a rise in the larceny theft rate by about 9 percent, compared to the 2014 rate.[34]
By 2019, organized retail theft was on the rise. Police and store owners attributed it to Prop 47.[35]Fox News reported that post Prop 47, both shoplifters and fencers operated openly and with impunity, with both criminals and storekeepers aware that selective enforcement policies mean that police largely ignore reports of shoplifting, or respond too slowly. President of the California Retailers Association Rachel Michelin stated that thieves will bring in calculators to ensure that they do not go over the $950 limit and that "one person will go into a store, fill up their backpack, come out, dump it out and go right back in and do it all over again." She reported that out-of-state crime rings use children, as they are even less likely to be prosecuted, and that even when police make arrests, charges are dropped or downgraded by the district attorney.[36]
Advocates of Proposition 47 underscored the importance of reallocating funds from incarceration to community-based treatment initiatives to decrease the likelihood of reoffending. Prop 47 dictates that 65% of the financial savings achieved by the state be directed toward mental health and substance use disorder treatment for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. The remaining funds are divided among K–12 schools (25%) and victim services (10%). The initial transfer of savings occurred in 2016, and the programs funded by these grants are relatively recent, making it unlikely for them to have had an immediate impact on recidivism rates.[38]
These grant programs are administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), specifically focusing on mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, and interventions before an individual's arrest or booking into a jail facility. Public agencies are responsible for submitting grant applications. A minimum of half the funds must be allocated to non-governmental community-based organizations. These grants provided by the BSCC span three years, with approximately $104 million distributed from June 2017 to August 2020.[39]
Diverse projects have been funded across various counties, targeting different age groups, types of offenses, and stages within the criminal justice process. These programs involve collaboration between multiple organizations. Although they currently serve a relatively modest number of individuals annually, successful initiatives have the potential to be expanded in the future.[40]
Efforts to reform or repeal
In 2020, Proposition 20 was put on the ballot which, among other changes, would have given prosecutors the ability to charge certain thefts as felonies again. It failed with 38% of the vote.[41]
In November 2024, Proposition 36, called the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, was placed on the ballot.[42] "2024 California Proposition 36 would undo some of Proposition 47's reduced sentencing, such as theft of items worth $950 or less by a person with two or more past convictions would become a felony under Proposition 36 but is currently a misdemeanor." The proposition was opposed by the California Democratic Party and supported by the Republican Party of California.[43][44] It passed with 69% of the vote.
A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished less severely than more serious felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences. Typically, misdemeanors are punished with prison time of no longer than one year, monetary fines, or community service.
Theft is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. The word theft is also used as a synonym or informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as larceny, robbery, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, or receiving stolen property. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny, while in others, theft is defined more narrowly. A person who engages in theft is known as a thief.
Felony petty theft is the colloquial term for a statute in the California Penal Code that makes it possible for a person who commits the crime of petty theft to be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor if the accused had previously been convicted of a theft-related crime at any time in the past. The technical name for the charge is petty theft with a prior.
In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.
A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.
California Proposition 21, known also as Prop 21, was a proposition proposed and passed in 2000 that increased a variety of criminal penalties for crimes committed by youth and incorporated many youth offenders into the adult criminal justice system. Major provisions of the proposition, as summarized by Attorney General of California are:
California Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, was an initiative statute that permanently changed state law to allow qualifying defendants convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses to receive a probationary sentence in lieu of incarceration. As a condition of probation defendants are required to participate in and complete a licensed and/or certified community drug treatment program. If the defendant fails to complete this program or violates any other term or condition of their probation, then probation can be revoked and the defendant may be required to serve an additional sentence which may include incarceration.
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003), is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
Proposition 83 of 2006 was a statute enacted by 70% of California voters on November 7, 2006, authored by State Senator George Runner and State Assemblywoman Sharon Runner. It was proposed by means of the initiative process as a version of the Jessica's Law proposals that had been considered in other states.
Drug policy of California refers to the policy on various classes and kinds of drugs in the U.S. state of California. Cannabis possession has been legalized with the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, passed in November 2016, with recreational sales starting January of the next year. With respect to many controlled substances, terms such as illegal and prohibited do not include their authorized possession or sale as laid out by applicable laws.
California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.
California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It was a proposed amendment to the California three-strikes law. Prop 66 would have required the third felony charge against a suspect to be especially violent and/or serious crimes to mandate a 25-years-to-life sentence. It also would have changed the definition of some felonies. It was rejected by voters, with 52.7% voting against the proposition.
Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews.
California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.
Proposition 36, also titled A Change in the "Three Strikes Law" Initiative, was a California ballot measure that was passed in November 2012 to modify California's Three Strikes Law. The latter law punishes habitual offenders by establishing sentence escalation for crimes that were classified as "strikes", and requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 to life for a "third-strike offense."
In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.
California Proposition 20 was a proposed initiated state statute on the ballot in the 2020 California elections. This initiative would have added more crimes to the list of non-violent felonies for which early parole is restricted, and would have required DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.
Proposition 36, titled Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes, was an initiated California ballot proposition and legislative statute that was approved in the 2024 general election. The proposition repealed parts of Proposition 47, passed during the 2014 general election, and amends the state constitution to increase penalties and allow felony charges for certain crimes.
↑ "Archived copy"(PDF). vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov. Archived from the original(PDF) on 8 September 2014. Retrieved 20 July 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
1 2 Bird, Mia; Lofstrom, Magnus; Martin, Brandon; Raphael, Steven; Nguyen, Viet. "The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism"(PDF). Public Policy Institute of California. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
↑ "After searching police reports and arrest records, CBS13 found that while the rate of these grab and dash crimes is on the rise, the rate of arrest is down. We turned to law enforcement and the retail industry for answers. Both blame a California law intended to make "neighborhoods safe."" https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/25/grab-and-dash-thefts-rise-police-blame-law/
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
