Prop 47 in California - Personal Thoughts

[discocrisco01]

I voted for Prop 47 that reduced a drug possession down to a misdemeanor. A discussion with another person at a meeting raised a good point. If people do not have a felony over their head, they are not have less incentive to get clean compared to misdemeanor. Such things as drug courts that encourage people to obtain clean time for long periods will work less. However, there is a good counterargument that it will make it easier for people to find jobs with a possession charge, which reduce the risk of addiction. I also think it is good because people who are cited for possession of Ecstasy and other drugs that I do not consider to be addictive.
Overall, I think it should be misdemeanor until a person get charges with four possession charges in a seven year period. At that time, a person would be assigned to a drug court where the person would long-term outpatient drug treatment and graduated sanctions for repeated dirty tests. If the person fails to complete the program, the person could spend up to 18 months flat time in the county jail (Three years * 50% good time credit). I know of plenty of people that completed a drug court program and have a considerable amount of clean time.

What you are thoughts on this?

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Ask your friend this:

How has prohibition worked for getting people off drugs so far? Does your friend think there are no drugs in prison because I assure you there are just as many drugs inside as there are outside. And those guys don't get rehab in prison.

[NYC_SKP]

2. I voted for it, then learned that it decriminalizes a lot more than drug offenses:

I should have researched harder.

Prop 47 will require the release of thousands of dangerous inmates. Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many other serious crimes will be eligible for early release under Prop 47. These early releases will be virtually mandated by Proposition 47. While Prop 47’s backers say judges will be able to keep dangerous offenders from being released early, this is simply not true. Prop 47 prevents judges from blocking the early release of prisoners except in very rare cases. For example, even if the judge finds that the inmate poses a risk of committing crimes like kidnapping, robbery, assault, spousal abuse, torture of small animals, carjacking or felonies committed on behalf of a criminal street gang, Proposition 47 requires their release.

Prop 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don’t steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.

And, reduces penalties for possession of date-rape drugs like Rohypnol (oops).

Unless I'm wrong.

[jaysunb]

4. You're wrong...for the most part. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

5. +1

[REP]

7. Yup.

That sounds like the "zOMG sky is falling" crazy right-winger anti-Prop 47 argument. As soon as I heard those, I knew it was something I was probably going to be for, and when I read the actual Proposition, why yes I was.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Yup.

I got the OMG ROOFIES flyer in the mail too. I can't remember who paid for it, at a glance it seemed like a coalition of law enforcement groups so I roundfiled it.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Are you saying that it doesn't reduce consequences for burglary and theft?

Even if it's of a gun, is that what you're saying?

Because that's my problem with it.

I'm all for leniency on victimless crimes like simple possession, but this bill goes further than that.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Mere possession of a stolen firearm remains a felony in CA. Even if the gun is worth $2.00

[NYC_SKP]

16. And if they break into my house and steal a laptop and break a window, any change?

Or is the law just about drug crimes?

[Luminous Animal]

17. If they broke into your home, that would be residential burglary which is still a felony.

[NYC_SKP]

18. If they pick my wallet for $942, all I have, on my way to pay my rent....

As I read it, it's less a big deal.

That kind of sucks. It seems like an invitation for them to go ahead and do that.

For people in communities that already are underserved by police protection, this seems a bad idea.

[Luminous Animal]

19. Again. A felony if they take the money or any other property directly off of you.

You are right, you did not research this very well.

[NYC_SKP]

21. So my eyes are off my briefcase on a bus. I turn my head and they grab it. Not a felony.

Or, if you prefer, I'm at an airport and doze off and the briefcase is on the chair next to me.

The whole thing begins around page 79 on this pdf of all the measures: http://blogs.mcgeorge.edu/lawandpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Merged_final-CIR-paginated_Updated-Nov.-2014.pdf

Those who drafted this must never have been victims of theft.

Want to decriminalize simple drug possession, fine.

I'm not OK with making more forms of theft less punishable.

[Luminous Animal]

23. If your computer is worth less that $950 and it was not removed from your person

under duress (which is considered robbery and is a felony), it is classified as petty theft and is misdemeanor and has been for a long time. What has changed is the "3 strikes" requirement or "enhancement" for prior petty thefts.

From your link.

Under Proposition 47, petty theft would be a mandatory misdemeanor. However, there would be exceptions. Based on the defendant’s criminal history, they may still be charged with a felony.17 Proposition 47 would add section 490.2 to the California Penal Code.18 The additional section mandates that theft of property where the value does not exceed $950 would be considered petty theft and would be charged as a misdemeanor. The initiative focuses on the dollar amount rather than the type of property.

Penal Code Section 666 creates a petty theft enhancement so that any person convicted of three or more theft-related crimes19 and who is subsequently convicted of petty theft can be charged with a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. The initiative removes this enhancement. Instead of the enhancement, which mandates a felony, a person with three or more prior theft related crimes will be charged with a misdemeanor.

The proposition does make an exception, leaving the original language and effect of the statute in place in certain situations. People who are required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act20 or who have a prior violent or serious felony conviction under California Penal Code 667(e)(2)(C)(iv) and who have a prior theft-related conviction remain unaffected by the proposition.

[sarisataka]

20. I'm not familiar with California laws

Is there a separate law making possession of a stolen firearm a felony or does this overrule that and possessing a stolen firearm under $950 would not be a felony?

[Luminous Animal]

22. Possession of a stolen firearm is a separate statute and a felony...

no matter what its worth. For what it is worth, stealing something that is worth less than $950.00 (other than firearms and a few other things) has long been classified as petty theft in California. These new sentencing guidelines will, in the vast majority of cases, apply to shoplifters and bad check writers.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=25001-26000&file=25850

(1) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony,
or of any crime made punishable by a provision listed in Section
16580, as a felony.

(2) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had
reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.

(3) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street
gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the
Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.

(4) Where the person is not in lawful possession of the firearm,
or is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or
acquiring a firearm pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9 of
this title, or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, as a felony.

(5) Where the person has been convicted of a crime against a
person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not
to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment
and fine.

(6) Where the person is not listed with the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 11106 as the registered owner of the handgun, by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine
not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and
imprisonment.

[Iggo]

10. Does it require their release because they're in jail on minor drug charges?

[Luminous Animal]

13. No. All cases will require a review and past criminal history will be taken into

account. NYC_SKP lifted, verbatim, all that "scary" stuff from the a paid rebuttal in the voter's handbook.

The actual text of the bill says this:

(4) Authorize consideration of resentencing for anyone who is currently serving a sentence for any of the offenses listed herein that are now misdemeanors.

(5) Require a thorough review of criminal history and risk assessment of any individuals before resentencing to ensure that they do not pose a risk to public safety.

[roody]

3. I voted yes. Drugs should be decriminalized.

I realize there are problems with other crimes, but I am tired of living in incarceration nation. We have to find real solutions to crime.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. When you say 'at a meeting' I assume that would be a meeting for addicts?

Because 'clean time' sure as fuck sounds like institutional speak for 'period before resuming use'.

[Iggo]

11. I've got 18 years and 11 days in clean time.

Is that just institutional speak for the period before I resume using?

[REP]

9. I don't care if someone busted with a joint gets "clean"

I want the State to stop wasting money prosecuting minor possession and wasting money imprisoning people for minor possession and spend that money going after real crimes.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Portugal decriminalized personal use possession of ALL drugs and their

addiction and use rates decreased.

By any metric, Portugal’s drug-decriminalization scheme has been a resounding success. Drug usage in many categories has decreased in absolute terms, including for key demographic groups, like 15-to-19-year-olds. Where usage rates have increased, the increases have been modest — far less than in most other European Union nations, which continue to use a criminalization approach.

Portugal, whose drug problems were among the worst in Europe, now has the lowest usage rate for marijuana and one of the lowest for cocaine. Drug-related pathologies, including HIV transmission, hepatitis transmission and drug-related deaths, have declined significantly.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43544.html#ixzz3IbvGWPkb