Proposition 47 (2014): Lighter Sentences to Reduce Incarceration
In November 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, a criminal justice reform that reclassified several nonviolent drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The law, known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, made shoplifting or theft under $950 and simple drug possession for personal use generally punishable by no more than one year in county jail (a misdemeanor) instead of a potential state prison term. The goal was to reduce overcrowded prisons and redirect the cost savings into prevention programs. Indeed, Prop 47 was part of a broader shift prompted by federal court orders to lower the prison population; over the next decade California’s prison population dropped by roughly 28%. The state saved tens of millions of dollars annually, which by law had to be spent on mental health treatment, drug rehab, school truancy prevention, and victim services (about $95 million in 2023).
Prop 47’s aftermath, however, proved contentious. Law enforcement officials and retailers soon argued that reducing penalties “went too far” and created a “revolving door” for repeat offenders. Many police felt that thieves and drug users were not being held accountable under the lighter sentencing. Some local leaders blamed Prop 47 for an uptick in theft and open drug use, especially in California’s largest cities.
- Crime trends: Data show that property crime did increase modestly in California in the two years after Prop 47 compared to other states, driven largely by an uptick in larceny theft (petty theft and shoplifting). By contrast, violent crime rates did not see a Prop 47-related jump in that period. Researchers point to a decline in arrest and case “clearance” rates for theft after 2014 – in other words, fewer petty crimes were solved or prosecuted – which likely emboldened some offenders. When people feel “less likely to get caught,” it can put upward pressure on property crime. (Notably, reported shoplifting incidents actually fell slightly post-2014, which analysts say may be due to underreporting – businesses sometimes stopped bothering to report minor thefts under $950, believing little would happen.)
- Public perception: In the years following Prop 47, high-profile incidents in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles shaped public opinion. Viral videos circulated of shoplifters brazenly clearing shelves in San Francisco pharmacies and walking out with impunity, feeding a narrative of lawlessness. Open-air drug markets also proliferated in parts of San Francisco’s downtown (the Tenderloin), as simple possession was usually just a citable misdemeanor. In Los Angeles, communities saw a series of “smash-and-grab” retail thefts and follow-home robberies during the pandemic era, heightening anxiety about crime. Police and business owners in both cities frequently cited Prop 47 as a culprit, arguing that career thieves knew they’d face minimal consequences as long as each theft stayed below the $950 felony threshold.
This growing frustration led to political backlash. San Francisco’s own experiment with a progressive, reform-oriented District Attorney (Chesa Boudin) ended with a voter recall in 2022, driven largely by perceptions that his office wasn’t aggressive enough on quality-of-life crimes. In Los Angeles County, voters in 2024 similarly ousted incumbent DA George Gascón – a prominent Prop 47 supporter – replacing him with a tougher-on-crime candidate in Nathan Hochman. And in Alameda County (Oakland), a recall effort targeted DA Pamela Price over similar public safety concerns. By the time the 2024 election rolled around, Californians’ appetite for reform had waned; many voters (across party lines) were demanding a swing back toward accountability and order.
Proposition 36 (2024): Voters Roll Back Key Reforms
Amid this public sentiment, Proposition 36 was placed on the November 2024 ballot as the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.” In essence, Prop 36 proposed to reverse parts of Prop 47 by toughening penalties for certain theft and drug offenses, especially for repeat offenders. It passed overwhelmingly (about 68% yes), signaling a broad mandate for a tougher approach. (Just four years earlier, a similar rollback attempt – Prop 20 in 2020 – failed, but by 2024 the political winds had shifted in favor of stricter measures.)
What changed under Prop 36? Several major provisions took effect on December 18, 2024 (30 days after the vote was certified):
- Felony Charges for Repeat Theft: Prop 36 authorizes felony prosecution for petty theft or shoplifting (≤ $950) if the offender has two or more prior convictions for theft-related crimes. In practical terms, a person caught shoplifting low-value goods for the third time can now be charged with a felony and face up to 3 years in jail or state prison. (Previously, under Prop 47, each of those offenses would remain a misdemeanor, generally capped at 6 months in jail.) This change directly undoes part of Prop 47’s sentencing reduction for repeat offenders.
- Longer Sentences for Organized Theft: To combat “flash mob” retail theft and group crimes, Prop 36 increases penalties when multiple accomplices commit theft or property damage together. If a crime involves 3 or more people acting in concert, courts can add up to 3 extra years to the prison sentence. For example, members of a coordinated shoplifting ring hitting a store simultaneously could each face a significantly longer term than before.
- Harsher Penalties for Drug Dealing: Prop 36 boosts punishments for certain drug crimes. Selling or possessing large quantities of controlled substances (like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or meth) now triggers enhanced felony sentences, and those sentences must be served in state prison rather than county jail. The measure also added fentanyl to a list of drugs that incur extra penalties if combined with firearms. For instance, carrying fentanyl while armed with a loaded gun is now a felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison (previously this scenario might have been a misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail).
- “Treatment-Mandated” Felonies for Drug Users: In an effort to channel repeat drug offenders into rehab, Prop 36 created a new category called “treatment-mandated felony.” Now, if someone is caught with illegal drugs and has at least two prior drug convictions, prosecutors can charge a felony that comes with a chance to avoid prison by completing treatment. Eligible defendants who plead guilty are diverted to a court-supervised substance abuse and/or mental health program. If they successfully finish treatment, the felony charge is dismissed – essentially giving them a second chance. But if they fail to complete the program, they can be sent to prison for up to 3 years. This provision aims to break the cycle of addiction-related crime by pairing tougher consequences with mandated treatment.
- Overdose Death Warnings (“Alexandra’s Law”): Prop 36 now requires courts to warn convicted drug dealers about future homicide charges. At sentencing, judges must admonish anyone convicted of selling or furnishing dangerous drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, meth, or cocaine) that if they continue this conduct and someone dies from the drugs they provide, they can be charged with murder. The idea is to make it easier to prosecute dealers of lethal doses by establishing that they had prior knowledge of the deadly risks (a concept often referred to as “Alexandra’s Law”).
Overall, Prop 36 “partially reversed” the earlier reforms enacted by Prop 47. By re-felonyizing certain offenses and lengthening sentences, it represents a shift back toward a more punitive approach. Importantly, Prop 36 also reduces the savings that Prop 47 had been delivering for rehabilitation programs – because if fewer offenders are treated as low-level misdemeanants, the state will save less money on incarceration. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that Prop 36 will cut the Prop 47 savings fund by tens of millions annually, money that otherwise would have gone to treatment, mental health, and victim services.
Impact on San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Other Cities
The contrasting approaches of Prop 47 and Prop 36 have been felt most acutely in California’s major urban centers, where crime and drug issues have been under the spotlight. San Francisco and Los Angeles, in particular, became symbols in the debate over these propositions.
- San Francisco: In the Prop 47 era, San Francisco gained national attention for a string of retail theft incidents. For example, organized groups of shoplifters targeted Union Square’s high-end stores in 2021, and videos of individuals casually cleaning out Walgreens shelves in broad daylight went viral. Vehicle break-ins and other petty theft also surged. At the same time, the city struggled with a fentanyl-driven drug crisis; open-air drug dealing and overdoses in areas like the Tenderloin became a visible daily reality. By late 2024, reported drug offenses in San Francisco were up about 4% compared to the year prior. Frustration among residents and businesses was palpable – a sentiment that likely contributed to the successful recall of SF’s former DA and the strong local support for Prop 36. San Francisco Mayor London Breed was an outspoken backer of Prop 36, arguing it would provide “targeted but impactful” tools to curb the city’s retail theft and fentanyl problems.
- Los Angeles: Los Angeles, as the state’s most populous county, has also navigated the balance between reform and enforcement. After Prop 47, L.A. saw overall crime initially follow statewide trends (a slight uptick in property crimes, continued declines in violent crime until the pandemic). But public concern grew as high-profile “grab-and-go” thefts hit malls and luxury stores in the L.A. area. Law enforcement complained that suspects arrested for shoplifting would be back on the streets quickly under Prop 47’s misdemeanor provisions. By 2024, voters’ impatience was evident: in the same election that Prop 36 passed, Los Angeles County elected a new district attorney after years of debating George Gascón’s reform policies. Hochman, the incoming DA, ran on a platform of stricter enforcement, aligning with Prop 36’s philosophy. His victory – along with Prop 36’s 70% approval in L.A. County – underscored that even in traditionally progressive Los Angeles, there was a strong appetite for a crackdown on repeat offenders.
- Other Cities: The Bay Area and Southern California at large echoed these trends. In Oakland (Alameda County), frustration with rising crime led to the near-recall of DA Pamela Price in 2024. San Diego and Sacramento leaders likewise supported tougher laws in response to spikes in drug overdoses and theft. Statewide, Prop 36 won a majority in 55 of 58 counties, indicating broad urban and suburban appeal. While crime rates and homelessness vary by locale, a common theme in 2024 was the public’s demand for more visible enforcement – a demand Prop 36 promised to answer.
Public Reaction and Early Enforcement of Prop 36
Prop 36’s passage marked a significant shift in California’s criminal justice stance, and reactions were strong on both sides. Supporters hailed it as a necessary course-correction; opponents warned of unintended consequences. Meanwhile, police and prosecutors quickly began using the new powers at their disposal.
Law enforcement and proponents: The Yes on 36 campaign – backed by many DAs, sheriffs, and retailers – celebrated an “overwhelming” mandate from voters to get tougher on crime. In fact, within days of Prop 36 taking effect, some agencies launched sting operations to show the new law in action. In Sacramento, for example, sheriff’s deputies organized an undercover shoplifting sweep at local stores (with TV cameras in tow), arresting dozens of suspected thieves in one day. One detective told the media that officers were “feeling empowered” by the tougher law, implying that repeat offenders could no longer just walk away with a citation.
Retailers and business groups – who had poured millions into supporting Prop 36 – also applauded the outcome. Big chains like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot contributed heavily to the Yes campaign, hoping the law will deter shoplifting rings that have cost stores millions in losses. “Californians want to feel safe in their neighborhoods and when they shop,” explained Greg Totten of the California District Attorneys Association, arguing Prop 36 will hold serial thieves and dealers accountable while still directing individuals into treatment when needed.
At the local level, officials moved swiftly to leverage the new law. For example, San Francisco’s District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced the city’s first case under Prop 36 just two days after it took effect, charging a suspect who had a loaded gun along with over 100 grams of heroin and cocaine packaged for sale. Jenkins praised the measure for giving her office “new tools” to hold offenders accountable “as intended by the voters”. Across California, law enforcement agencies touted similar crackdowns. Sacramento’s televised sting was one example, and in smaller cities like Folsom and Redding, police publicized arrests of individuals for shoplifting and drug possession under Prop 36, sometimes even posting mugshots on social media as a warning. Officials in Solano County (San Francisco Bay Area) and as far north as Shasta County also announced plans to charge repeat thieves and fentanyl users under the new felony provisions. The overall message from proponents: California is “open for business” on holding criminals to account again, and they believe this will improve quality of life on city streets.
Civil rights groups and opponents: On the other side, criminal justice reform advocates have expressed deep concern about Prop 36. Many of these opponents campaigned vigorously against it – a coalition that included the ACLU, rehab and reentry organizations, and even the California Democratic Party. They argue that Prop 36 represents a step backward. Governor Gavin Newsom (a Democrat) was a prominent critic; he warned that “Prop 36 takes us back to the 1980s, [to] mass incarceration,” and criticized the initiative for promising treatment without providing new treatment capacity. (Newsom pointed out that 22 counties in California have no residential drug treatment facility at all – raising the question of where the “mass treatment” Prop 36 envisions would actually occur.) Opponents also highlight that Prop 36 cuts into funding that was earmarked for rehab programs under Prop 47. In their view, the state should be expanding investment in mental health services, housing, and addiction treatment, not incarcerating more low-level offenders.
Early Outcomes and Ongoing Challenges
It has only been a short time since Prop 36 took effect (as of early 2025), so its full impacts remain to be seen. Early statistics show a spike in arrests for shoplifting and drug possession in some jurisdictions, as police take advantage of the new felony categories. Prosecutors in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and elsewhere have begun filing Prop 36 charges in cases that previously would have been misdemeanors. The true test will be whether these actions lead to measurable declines in theft, burglary, and street-level drug dealing over the coming months and years.
Supporters are optimistic. They believe that even the deterrent effect of Prop 36 may already be at work. The fact that repeat petty thieves now face real jail or prison time could dissuade some would-be offenders. Similarly, with dealers now warned they could face murder charges if their drugs kill someone, there is hope that fentanyl peddlers will think twice. Prop 36 proponents also point to the new “treatment-mandated felony” as a positive innovation – effectively a forced intervention for addicts who haven’t succeeded under prior diversion programs. Rather than cycling endlessly through misdemeanor courts, a repeat drug offender might now get into a residential treatment program and receive monitoring, which could ultimately help break the cycle of addiction-driven crime. All of this, they argue, will contribute to safer streets and a relief for hard-hit retail districts.
The return to tougher sentencing does come with significant challenges. By design, Prop 36 will increase the number of people in custody – the state analyst projects a few thousand additional inmates in state prisons, plus a net rise of a few thousand in county jails and local supervision caseloads. California’s jails and prisons have finite capacity and checkered track records on inmate safety and rehabilitation. Critics worry that expanded incarceration could strain facilities that were already under stress (recalling that California’s prisons were once so overcrowded, the Supreme Court intervened). More inmates could also mean higher costs for taxpayers, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars more each year in combined state and local expenses. Advocates note that California must be careful not to repeat past mistakes – during the “tough on crime” era, overcrowded prisons led to federal court battles, and county jails saw spikes in inmate deaths and mental health crises. This risk is one reason Governor Newsom and others insist on boosting treatment resources: if Prop 36 funnels more offenders into rehab, the state needs to ensure those rehab programs exist and are effective. Otherwise, judges might send more people to prison by default if treatment slots aren’t available, undermining the initiative’s intent to offer help to addicts.
Another looming question is whether Prop 36 will truly reduce crime. While intuitively, harsher penalties can deter some criminals, research on recidivism suggests that certainty of being caught often matters more than severity of punishment. If police and prosecutors use Prop 36 aggressively, the certainty of consequences is indeed higher now for repeat offenders – which could drive down offenses over time. However, if the root causes (poverty, addiction, homelessness) remain unaddressed, there’s concern that crime may continue in different forms. For example, an addict facing a felony might simply shift tactics or offenses rather than quit drug use, unless treatment truly takes hold. Forced treatment itself is a debated strategy; experts note that treatment coerced by the justice system can be less effective if not accompanied by adequate support and voluntary engagement. California’s challenge will be to implement Prop 36 in a way that balances accountability with rehabilitation.
Finally, there is the human toll to consider. Prop 36’s tougher stance will be felt most by individuals who repeatedly commit low-level crimes – a population that often includes the homeless, substance-dependent, or mentally ill. Many of these individuals were at the center of California’s policy debates: Prop 47 sought to treat their offenses as health and economic issues rather than purely criminal ones, whereas Prop 36 leans back toward incarceration. Going forward, lawmakers and communities will likely debate complementary measures to Prop 36, such as increasing funding for drug treatment programs, mental health services, and housing. In fact, some California cities are already investing in expanded detox centers and crisis response teams, acknowledging that policing and jails alone cannot solve complex social problems.
In summary, Prop 36 vs. Prop 47 represents a pendulum swing in California’s approach to crime. The state tried a decade of leniency for minor offenses, saw mixed results, and voters decided to course-correct with a tougher strategy. In San Francisco, L.A., and beyond, many hope this will bring visible relief from theft and street disorder. There are early signs of heightened enforcement, and time will tell if crime statistics improve. Yet the enduring lesson of the Prop 47 experiment is that true public safety may require more than just tougher laws – it also demands tackling the addiction, poverty, and social dislocation that underlie much of this offending. As California moves forward under Prop 36, finding the right balance between accountability and rehabilitation will be key to delivering on the promise of safer communities without repeating the mistakes of the past.