Introduction
In the year 2014, the citizens of California voted for the passage of Proposition 47 (Couzens & Bigelow, 2016). The intention of Proposition 47 was to ensure that the amount of money spent on prisons and jails of California was reduced. An alternative was to be undertaken on the nonviolent and non-serious offences. The money saved due to Proposition 47 was to be used for other important programs and activities in the state. Some of those programs include support of high-level education and treatment of those people with mental problems. After the adoption of the Proposition 47, criticism emerged as some people argued that the law would have a lot of negative consequences.
Arguments for Proposition 47
Those that voted for the proposition 47 believed that the Act would assist in saving a lot of money that initially was used in prisons. Proposition 47 was to achieve that aim by:
(1) Reducing theft offences and the possession of drugs under $950 to misdemeanors (Couzens & Bigelow, 2016).
(2) Creating a process that would enable those sentenced for felony offences to send a petition to the court so that they may be sentenced for misdemeanors offences (Couzens & Bigelow, 2016).
(3) Letting those that had finished their felony sentence to apply to the court so that their crimes could be reclassified as a misdemeanor.
(4) Creating a safe neighborhood from the savings that were achieved by the change of the law.
Felony convictions presented a potential barrier to the society. Those that were convicted of felony offences faced a lot of difficulties even after the end their incarceration (Couzens & Bigelow, 2016). Thousands of Californians were faced with barriers to employment, civic engagement, and housing because they were not seen as fit to the society. After Proposition 47 had been enacted, those individuals that had previously experienced barriers in the society could benefit from it.
The other reason for voting for Proposition 47 was so that some people could have their professional licenses restored after the law enabled the conversion of their felony offences to misdemeanor ones (Couzens & Bigelow, 2016). Initially, those that were found guilty of any felony offence had their licenses taken away. Even after finishing their punishment, they were not able to move back to their professional activities. Those that were convicted of felony offences that later were changed to misdemeanor benefited a lot as they were able to restore their professional jobs.
The other reason for supporting the Act was so that it would facilitate savings in terms of space and money that is mainly spent in the prisons (Couzens & Bigelow, 2016). Keeping suspects convicted of raping, murdering and child molesting was a waste of space and resources for the country. The reason for passing the law was to reduce the amount of money spent on prisons; in turn, that money could be used for other important activities and programs in the country.
Reasons Against
There was an increase in the rate of crime in California, as the police and the prosecutor argued. However, the advocates argued that the police had refused to comply with the intent of Proposition 47 and that resulted in the increase in the rate of crime. The “felony hammer” that fell on drugs offenders was abolished by the new law and the threat of being held in the prison decreased (Feuer, 2015). The drug cases that were initially treated as felony offences were made misdemeanor and thus more people were indulging in the use of drugs because it was not a serious offence. The impact of this Act on the Drug's Courts was that the participation in those Courts began to decline as now the issue of drugs was not treated as serious as it was before (Feuer, 2015).
According to Skelton (2015), the collection of DNA would reduce as the law states that DNA is only supposed to be collected from felony suspects. Crime statistics indicate that the DNA of the misdemeanor suspects (such as those involved in theft and drug crimes) highly correlates with the violent crimes. Marie Schubert stated that "DNA is the greatest tool ever given to law enforcement to find the guilty and exonerate the innocent” (Skelton, 2015). This is an indication that after converting some of the crimes from felony to the misdemeanor ones, then there would be a problem in the department that is in charge of investigation as it would be unable to collect DNA from suspects of nonviolent crimes.
The other reason against the Proposition 47 was that it abolished the issue of possession of narcotics. After the passage of Proposition 47, the possession of drugs is treated as a non-serious act. Nancy O’Malley states that it is not possible for an individual to have drugs such as the date-rape drugs without the intention of committing a sexual crime (Skelton, 2015). This brings about the idea that there should be some reform in Proposition 47 so as to reduce the crime rate in California that emerged after the introduction of the new Law.
Reasons for Major Overhaul to the Proposition by the Policy Makers
Policy makers should consider both the positive and the negative effects as a result of Proposition 47. Although it is evident that there are some benefits to the individual suspects that initially were convicted of felony offences, the government should also look at the significant adverse effects associated with that law. For example, following passage of the Act, crime rates have increased as many people are not threatened by the “felony hammer” (Feuer, 2015). “Felony hammer” is the punishment associated with any felony offence, and thus they end up indulging in some crime acts that the law treats as non-serious.
The other reason for a change in the law is the interference in the collection of DNA. The law states that DNA should only be collected from felony suspects, meaning that those that indulge in nonviolent crimes will not have their DNA collected (Skelton, 2015). Crime statistics indicates that there is a high correlation between the DNA collected from violent crime, and that collected in a misdemeanor crime such as theft and drug crime. DNA is one of the methods that is used to prove if a suspect is innocent or guilty so interference in its collection would affect the work of the crime investigators.
The other negative impact of Proposition 47 was that those convicted of serious crimes such as possession narcotic drugs and stealing firearms would be given relatively short sentences. Those that had been convicted of those crimes were to be released, and this posed a great danger to the entire population as most of the people caught with firearms ended up committing felony crimes. Therefore, there should be a reform in the law to ensure that people are prevented from indulging in felony crimes.
The main aim of Proposition 47 was to reduce the amount of money spent in the prisons and use the savings for other critical government activities and programs (Communityreflectionsinc.org, 2016). However, there is credible evidence to show that even after the release of some suspects, they do not obtain the mental treatment that the government had intended to offer to those victims. The result was that the people were left without treatment, and it is important to remember that those with mental illnesses can be dangerous to the entire population. Additionally, they cannot contribute to the development of the state.
Conclusion
It is evident that Proposition 47 had both positive and negative impacts to the state of California. The policy makers should change the law to prevent the long-life negative effects to the state and the entire population of California. Urgent reform is needed to the law before adverse impacts are experienced.
References
Communityreflectionsinc.org. (2016). How Can Proposition 47 Benefit Our Community? |
Community Reflections Inc.. Communityreflectionsinc.org. Retrieved 28 April 2016, from http://communityreflectionsinc.org/how-can-proposition-47-benefit-our-community/
Couzens, J. & Bigelow, T. (2016). Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods Act (1st ed.).
Retrieved from
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Prop-47-Information.pdf
Feur, M. (2015). California’s Prop. 47 Revolution: How it’s changed the state. latimes.com.
Retrieved 28
April 2016, from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-california-prop-47-revolution-20151026-htmlstory.html
Skelton, G. (2015). Movement builds to correct major flaw in Prop. 47. latimes.com. Retrieved
28 April
2016, from http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-proposition47-20150226 column.html
