Unintended consequence of Prop. 47 — more crime
By Cindy Chang, Marisa Gerber and Ben Poston, Los Angeles Times
Semisi Sina has kept sheriff’s deputies busy in the last year.
The 30-year-old has stolen bicycles from his Hacienda Heights neighborhood. He has skipped out on drug treatment and kept up his meth habit.
He has racked up 16 arrests, earning himself a place near the top of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s list of repeat offenders picked up for theft or drug use. And he says a new law has made it easier for him to commit crimes.
“Now, you can get away with it because of Proposition 47,” Sina said recently in an interview at his parents’ home.
One year after voters approved the landmark ballot measure, Proposition 47 has dramatically altered California’s criminal justice landscape.
It was an extremely poorly written bill. Equating theft with drug use makes no sense. One is a victimless crime, the other is not.
And the legal system, with prosecutors bargaining down to minor offenses from more serious ones, allows some violent criminals to have deceptively harmless looking records.
But that’s what we get for having too many laws, too many legislators, too many lawyers, and too many people dependent on the system.
Dog. Prop 47 passed with 60% of the vote. As it turned out, Newt Gingrich & Rand Paul supported Prop 47, while Diane Feinstein was against it; I voted against it.
There are 4 Amendments to the legislation pending.
California Corrections has released 3,068 inmates since last year and 14 have ended up back in the system; a return rate of .005%.
Sacramento County has released 42 inmates and 25 are back in custody; a return rate of 60%.
Placer County has released 28 inmates and 4 are back in custody; a return rate of 14%.
Perhaps my opposition was misplaced and/or this headline is click bait.
It is my understanding that return to custody statistics are based on new crimes for which the offenders are convicted. If the offender is “only” sent back on a violation of parole, PRCS or MCS (forms of county supervised parole), that is not counted as a new crime, so the recidivism numbers are somewhat misleading. There are positives and negatives to this legislation, to be sure.
The article should be titled “Intended Consequences” of Prop. 47. Beyond stupid.
Second chance? This little puke has had SIXTEEN chances and admits he won’t stop. Geeze people, a fourth grader could have predicted this (once again failed) liberal attitude wouldn’t work. Well you fools now have to deal with the increase in crime YOU VOTED FOR.
“Equating theft with drug use makes no sense”.
Dog,are you kidding? Why do you think drug users steal?
Kits, if drugs were legal, users wouldn’t HAVE to steal. When’s the last time anybody broke into your house for beer money?
Dog-
I always believed if you thought a bit before hitting your keyboard, you would not come across as a nut.
My belief has been vindicated by your very correct answer to Kits. Hope to see more.
Dog, when was the last time you saw a drug user with a job? They will steal anything they can to pawn off for money to get their next fix. Even if drugs were legal, these low life’s with no job would be stealing anyway. How do you not see that?
They steal to get money to buy the drugs….legal or not.
How many alcoholics do you know that have jobs?
Right. Most of them. Because alcohol is legal, it is affordable, and most people can maintain a job and a normal life, whether they drink or not.
As would be the case if drugs were legal. Drugs would be cheap, the drug cartels would no longer have power over drug users OR innocent bystanders, the stigma of being a user would no longer prevent them from being a part of society. The criminal element would be eliminated, for all practical purposes.
Dog. Evidently Kats Crap has not heard of Keith Richards or James Taylor.
Actually Dog, you have some interesting points. However, if all Drugs were “legal” how does that help society in general. Example. do we really want Mom and Dad shooting Highball with little Johnny and Cindy watching or in the same home? Would the rules of child protective services still apply?
And this is just one problem.