Proposition 47 revisited

This month marks a year since California voters approved Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for some drug and property crimes. Here, the current San Diego police chief, Shelley Zimmerman and a former San Diego police chief, William Lansdowne share their perspective on the implementation and success of the initiative.

Criminals not held accountable under Prop. 47

By Shelley Zimmerman

A year after voters passed Proposition 47, my opposition to it remains unchanged. By reducing felony charges to misdemeanors for several drug and theft-related crimes, criminals who commit low-level crimes over and over are not being held accountable. At the same time, it has not provided the funding for alternatives to custody and has removed the motivation for drug addicts to get treatment. It puts our communities at risk of being victimized by repeat offenders who know there are no longer serious consequences for their crimes.

One of the worst consequences of Prop. 47 has been the near-death of Drug Court, a proven and effective tool for treating drug addiction. Drug Court offers a rigorous, supervised treatment program allowing those who need help the most to get it. The reality is most addicts will not seek help on their own. As a result, Drug Court and the remarkable success it has had helping people break their cycle of addiction is all but disappearing. In essence, Prop. 47 is enabling the behavior that brings many people into the criminal justice system in the first place.

I have had the privilege of speaking at Drug Court graduation. Graduates have told story after story of how facing serious penalties was the catalyst to get the help they needed, but could not manage on their own.

One example is a citizen’s commendation sent to two of our officers from a woman who had successfully completed a drug treatment program. She thanked the officers for taking her to jail. The mandatory sentencing she received gave her the motivation to succeed. She said she would have never sought help for herself and her condition without it. In her words, “I am no longer homeless, no longer on drugs.” Going to jail, “it was a milestone in my life that changed it for the better.”

Individuals faced with similar circumstances today have a more difficult pathway to success. With Prop. 47, there is no incentive for these individuals to get treatment. For those drug offenders who do have a desire for treatment, where is the money promised by Prop. 47?

Without these programs in place, we are seeing an endemic revolving door; frequent fliers clogging the criminal justice system, only to be released right back onto our streets. Our community is being victimized by these serial offenders. Our officers and our community express similar concerns and frustration with Prop. 47 and its lack of desired results. Prop. 47, in essence, enables recidivism.

Research, as well as my own personal experience over more than 33 years in law enforcement, shows addicts need stability and structure to successfully kick their habit. We have an obligation to our community to protect them and their property from harm. Drug addiction is a motivator for a number of crimes. Per SANDAG, interviews were conducted of adult arrestees at San Diego County jails, revealing that 69 percent tested positive for an illicit drug and 83 percent tested positive when their primary charge was a property crime. Adopting policies that prioritize drug treatment is a great idea, but we need a comprehensive approach to accomplish that objective.

Looking at our crime statistics for the city of San Diego, since the passage of Prop. 47, we have seen more than an 8 percent increase in violent crime and more than a 7 percent increase in opportunity-related theft crimes. Obviously, crime trends fluctuate over time, but it would be naïve to dismiss the impact of Prop. 47.

I support smart sentencing — sentencing that involves incremental consequences based on the behavior and recidivism of the defendant. That is why I am a founding member of Law Enforcement Leaders, an organization comprised of more than 130 leaders across the country committed to finding viable solutions to reduce incarceration and reduce crime.

We must break the cycle. Without smart sentencing, what should be done if someone repeatedly refuses treatment? Or, refuses to face the consequences? There must be mechanisms in place to encourage individuals to accept treatment options and stop this endless cycle. Our public deserves a system that is a win-win for the people who want treatment, while protecting the public from the people who refuse treatment.

Proposition 47 may have been well-intentioned, but has simply missed the mark. Our community, whom we so proudly serve, deserves better.

Zimmerman is chief of police of the San Diego Police Department.

Prop. 47 reforms are working

By William Lansdowne

I spent nearly five decades in law enforcement across California, from San Diego to Richmond. I served police departments before the “tough-on-crime” era, during its growth and height, and in more recent years of reform. Proposition 47, passed by voters one year ago, has been the best development of my career.

I was an official proponent of Prop. 47 because, for decades, California wasted billions on costly prisons that produced high recidivism rates, depleted community resources and failed to end the cycle of crime. The measure implemented common sense reforms to stop that cycle, specifically by changing low-level felonies to misdemeanors, and reallocating prison dollars to prevention and treatment.

A year later, Prop. 47 is working. The bloated prison population has dropped, allowing California to meet a federal deadline to reduce crowding one year ahead of schedule. The state budget had $73 million cut from corrections because of Prop. 47, and millions more in savings are projected for both state and county governments.

The law has also reduced jail crowding, allowing sheriffs to hold people for serious crimes for their entire sentences — and to focus more on rehabilitation. Additionally, thousands of people are asking courts to reduce old, low-level felonies on their records and remove barriers to jobs, housing, education and more.

Perhaps this is why Prop. 47 was touted as a success story by a new group of U.S. law enforcement leaders dedicated to reducing crime and incarceration. Their endorsement comes as support for reforms builds between leaders of both political parties, including the president himself.

As we evaluate the impact of Prop. 47, however, another important piece of the equation has come to light: decades of dysfunction within local justice systems that reveal the next layer of necessary reforms. Specifically, as state incarceration numbers drop, our data-driven approaches to stop crime cycles at the local level should increase.

Using data to determine who should be in jail and who should not sounds obvious, but it has never been how our justice system works. Now that Prop. 47 has pulled back the curtain on bad local practices, we have a chance to stop local waste — and cycles of crime.

In fact, people cycling in and out of the system for low-level offenses was a sad reality long before Prop. 47. Drug and mental health treatment have never been highly valued or funded.

Critics seem to forget that — or that law enforcement can arrest people suspected of committing misdemeanors and detain them in jail. Judges can sentence misdemeanants to up to one year in county jail for each misdemeanor.

Judges can also sentence them to supervised probation, including required drug treatment and testing. Failing probation or failing to appear in court is punishable by jail — for misdemeanors and felonies.

This is not a matter of can’t — it’s a matter of won’t. Unfortunately, too many criminal justice officials would rather complain about change than use reforms as a chance to do what is long overdue: use the myriad tools available to adapt local practices and stop cycles of crime without overreliance on incarceration or felony convictions.

For example, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion is a program in Seattle where police divert some low-risk people accused of offenses related to drugs, prostitution and homelessness away from traditional arrest and booking and to programs that address underlying causes, like drug addiction or mental illness. Participants are 58 percent less likely to be re-arrested than individuals booked for similar offenses.

Napa is one of several counties prioritizing jail beds for high-risk individuals by using risk-based assessments to determine who can be safely supervised in the community while they await trial. People who are supervised appear in court and avoid additional crimes at a rate far higher than the national average when people await trial unsupervised.

And in Yolo County, the probation department changed their guidelines to ensure people convicted of misdemeanor drug possession can be sentenced to supervised probation and required drug treatment — or else end up spending a year in county jail.

These model approaches are what local officials should be talking about. If changing low-level offenses to misdemeanors causes this much anxiety in local justice systems, the need for local reform is long overdue. Thank goodness Prop. 47 has brought this issue to light.

Lansdowne retired in 2014 after 10 years as San Diego police chief.