Telepeer

Criminal justice reforms should not be scapegoated for any and every crime in California

May 2, 2023

Editor’s note: This commentary was originally published in print on April 23 as part of a pro-con debate page. To read the counterpoint, click here.

Over the last decade, with widespread voter support, California has implemented sweeping criminal justice reforms which have significantly reduced the state’s reliance on its bloated and poorly run prison system for holding criminals accountable.

In 2010, California’s carceral system held over 162,000 people in state prisons, camps, in-state contract facilities and out-of-state prisons. That year, more than 6,400 people were sent to state prison whose controlling offense was simple drug possession. This was indeed the tough-on-crime era.

However, beginning in 2011, big changes came to criminal justice policy in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled California’s prison system was dangerously overcrowded. Not only were people dying in California’s prisons due to inadequate healthcare, but the overcrowding made effective rehabilitation incredibly difficult. Reflective of this, 54.3% of people released from prisons from 2011-12 and before were convicted for a new crime within three years (compared to 44.6% for those released in 2017-18).

In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, California enacted Assembly Bill 109 to shift responsibility for non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offenders to the local level.

Research published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science in 2016 determined that AB 109 had no significant impact on overall crime, but may contribute to slight increases in property crimes.

“We’ve seen no appreciable uptick in assaults, rapes or murders that can be connected to the prisoners who were released under realignment,” said Charis Kubrin, professor of criminology, law at society at UC Irvine at the time.

The following year, Californians approved Proposition 36 to reform “three strikes” so that the “third strike” had to be a serious or violent crime. Nearly 70% of voters approved the measure. Thanks to the measure, thousands of people convicted for non-violent and non-serious crimes were resentenced and released from prison. In 2014, the Three Strikes Project at Stanford University reported recidivism rates of just 1.3% for those released under Prop. 36 compared to 30% for all prisoners in the same time period.

In 2014, nearly 60% of Californians approved Proposition 47 to reduce drug possession and low-level theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

Prop. 47 has received the greatest scrutiny from critics. But the core premises are ones most Californians clearly agree with. One, people should not be hit with a felony record, which brings with it a litany of collateral consequences, for simple drug possession or low-level theft crimes. And two, society would be better off with greater investments in drug treatment, mental health treatment and crime prevention.

Since its passage, Prop. 47 has saved more than $600 million in reduced incarceration costs, with those savings required under the measure to be reinvested in crime prevention and rehabilitation programs. Programs funded by Prop. 47 savings include successful efforts in Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County to reduce recidivism for formerly incarcerated individuals, particularly those with mental health or substance abuse issues. Such efforts must be scaled up across the state.

There have been two significant studies on Prop. 47’s impact on crime, both published in 2018. One, by the aforementioned Professor Kubrin, determined Prop. 47 had no impact on crime. The other, from the Public Policy Institute of California, found that Prop. 47 had no impact on violent crime but may have contributed to an increase in larceny thefts.

In 2016, 64% of Californians approved Proposition 57 to increase good behavior and early parole opportunities for prisoners. Gov. Jerry Brown championed the initiative on the grounds that it could encourage prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programming behind bars.

Last month, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation issued a report on recidivism. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who received educational merit and rehabilitative achievement credits have significantly lower post-release conviction rates (28.9% and 22.5%) compared to those released without any Prop. 57 credits (45.4%).

Opinion |

California Democrats at odds over how to close growing budget deficit

Opinion |

Politicians get into position for 2026 California elections

Opinion |

Housing First has failed. The homeless crisis in California demands a swift, effective response.

Opinion |

California’s homelessness crisis is a symptom of its housing crisis, that’s why Housing First makes sense

Opinion |

Lou Correa: Title 42 is rightfully set to end. But are we prepared?

What this suggests is that California must do more to ensure that prisoners are provided meaningful rehabilitation programs before they are released.

Taken together, I think the evidence shows that the biggest criminal justice reforms have overall been successful in their objectives.

But what about crime?

It’s always complicated. From 2011 to 2019, homicides, robberies, car thefts and burglaries all fell. Homicide, aggravated assault and car theft spiked during the COVID years of 2020 and 2021, while robbery, larceny and burglary continued to fall. Is that because of criminal justice reforms? It’s probably more complicated than that.

Fundamentally, claims of causation between reforms and upticks in crime remain poorly substantiated.

Sal Rodriguez can be reached at [email protected]

Orange County Register

News Details

Criminal justice reforms should not be scapegoated for any and every crime in California

Related Articles

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS