A decade ago California passed Prop 47, which converted certain nonviolent property crimes into misdemeanors and reduced sentences a bit. But did it go too far? This year, Prop 36 is on the November ballot to reverse some of the changes.
The motivation, of course, is a rise in crime. But has crime actually gone up? Of course not. Crime has been declining in California for more than 30 years, and property crime is currently 4% below its 2014 level.
But that doesn't tell us much. Crime has been declining everywhere, so it's hardly a surprise that it's also declined in California. What's of more interest is how crime in California compares to the national trend. Here it is:
For a long time, property crime in California was dropping faster than the national rate. That turned around abruptly when Prop 47 passed. Since then, property crime has increased compared to the national average. Put another way, property crime dropped 29% in the decade before Prop 47 but only 4% in the decade after.
This is hardly the final word. Still, it looks like California might benefit from reining in Prop 47 a bit.
Everyone ???? knows that the drop in crime is because no one reports it anymore. Why bother?
It found that in 2022, only 41.5% of violent crimes and 31.8% of household property crimes were reported to authorities. Most of the crimes that are reported to police, meanwhile, are not solved, at least based on an FBI measure known as the clearance rate.
SAN RAMON, Calif. -- A 72-year-old former Bay Area Home Depot employee is suing the retailer for age discrimination and wrongful termination after she was fired for failing to stop $5,000 worth of fraudulent transactions. The incident happened at the San Ramon Home Depot three months after a loss prevention officer was shot and killed at a Pleasanton Home Depot while trying to stop a theft attempt. Carleen Acevedo was fired from Home Depot last July for "creating a security or loss prevention risk" according to her termination letter. She says she felt scared and intimidated by the person at her register, who was paying with a suspicious card.
Oh never mind. No one really cares.
"It found that in 2022, only 41.5% of violent crimes and 31.8% of household property crimes were reported to authorities." First, what is "It"? Second, if crimes are not reported, how does "it" know about them?
the world is a hell hole. crime has never been higher. damn the facts. full meme ahead.
i have no opinion on cali's props since i don't live there. just the usual observation that it's always easier to convince people of the worst than it is to convince them of the opposite no matter reality. damn history; our times are always the most troubled that humanity has ever experienced. crime's high, the economy stinks, politicians do nothing. that's how a man (term used loosely) like donald trump can gain traction as a political candidate.
Kevin was referring California, not a city in Colombia…
really rick? huh. thanks. cali as in CALIfornia. GEEZ!
Hmm. Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? Or are otherwise fake?
Because, as Trump keeps reminding us, California (and New York) is awash with crimes committed by those violent immigrants.
The chart doesn't say what you say it does.
The "turned around abruptly", if there is one, is around 2012, not 2015.
I also don't think comparing it to the national level is a great thing to do. It can give some context, but shouldn't be looked at on its own. It's possible, for example, that California has been closer to equilibrium on this than national statistics, and national statistics were (and/or still are) approaching that equilibrium. I'm not saying that's for sure the case, just that there are all kinds of reasons why those numbers might be moving relative to each other, so you can't just look at the 1 chart.
And given that you say that the other data, on California only, has been declining... that contradicts the argument that the Prop resulted in increased crime. I understand you're trying to make the point about "well without that Prop, this would've happened instead", but that's not a counterfactual argument you can make with just this one dubious chart. It's entirely possible that there's some societal asymptote for property crime (other than 0, obviously) and California was already approaching it and it that the numbers would be no different without the Prop.
The crime picture is puzzling. I live near San Francisco and get crime news from the San Francisco Chronicle. I can't speak to more violent crime rates but it seems that lower level crime is abundant, if not increasing. There are lots of stories in the Chron about burglaries, car break-ins, catalytic converter theft, broken windows in restaurants, shoplifting and such.
It doesn't seem to be a lot of people involved in this. When suspects are apprehended I read about a handful of people responsible for huge numbers of catalytic converter thefts or car break-ins.
I'm not sure that stronger laws are the answer. I'd like to see a really good study done to understand this. So far I see a lot of finger pointing. People are mad that the police aren't aggressive enough to arrest people or to follow up on "small" crimes like theft. Police complain that judges won't prosecute people. Judges seem to want to excuse people for being poor or sick. It goes round and round but the people who are the victims of these crimes still suffer a lot.
From my naive viewpoint it seems that the police need to work harder. The number of traffic violations for speeding and such is way down. The arrests for shoplifting and car break-ins seems to be down.
Some crimes can be lessened by creating better laws. In MN there were huge numbers of catalytic converter thefts, so they started requiring documentation to sell them to scrap dealers. Suddenly the scrap dealers could get in trouble for receiving stolen goods, and the thefts dramatically lessened.
Yep, the research seems to show that it is chance of getting caught that reduces the amount of crime not the harshness of the penalties. Obviously there has to be some penalty but getting charged for a several misdemeanors out of the dozens of crimes you committed is more likely to stop you from committing crime than a higher penalty on 1 time you get caught. In other words a 25% of a 6 month sentence is weighed more heavily that a 5% chance of a 5 year sentence.
Enforcement depends upon police action.
If they don't want to act, enforcement doesn't happen.
Also, our 'reduction' made it only equal to many other states. It wasn't unusually lower penalties, despite right-wing lies.
There's a dividing line between violent crime and lifestyle crime. We're all in agreement on locking up violent offenders. There seems to be disagreement on disruptive, lifestyle crime where there is minor economic damage.
I think CA went a little too far in being cavalier on lifestyle crime (porch pirates, small retail theft, catalytic converters, car break ins). Those matter to people and make them feel unsafe, I get that in some cases it's punishing people for being poor but being poor is not an excuse for property crimes. Stealing a sandwich because you're starving is different from stealing an iPad to resell. There's a lot of organized retail theft that goes unreported because it's not a crime unless it's over $1,000.
"Lock 'em all up" creates an additional problem of creating a training school where more serious criminals teach techniques to amateurs.
Many crimes create costs far higher than the amount gained from them. Catalytic converter thefts and street lamp wire thefts are examples of this - the criminal makes $60, but the repair costs thousands. Businesses are often broken into, costing thousands in damaged windows and doors, only for the burglar to walk away with a couple hundred (or less) in petty cash.
Shoplifting is one of the few crimes where the criminal makes a similar amount of money as the retailer loses.
"Stealing a sandwich because you're starving is different from stealing an iPad to resell. "
Is it though? It all comes down to the purpose doesn't it?
If someone steals a sandwich because they are starving, and someone steals an iPad to resell and buy groceries with that money because their kids are starving, are the two cases not morally the same?
It should be legal to kill repeat offender porch pirates.
No. Go away, murderous creep.
Did they, though?
There's no evidence that punishment for organized or repeated thefts was lowered. Or that prosecutors stopped prosecuting it.
Basic human nature. Some people won't steal because they know it's wrong. Some people will steal because they realize the penalty is worth the risk. Make the penalty a bit more painful. Never underestimate the corrupt nature of humanity.
"Some people will steal because they realize the penalty is worth the risk."
The problem is that it's very unusual for a person to apply a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis to their own behavior, and the the sort of people who are contemplating shoplifting from a CVS or swiping an iPad from a parked car are probably even *less* likely to do so.
True. Consider all the cases of folks shooting a judge or a DA because they "didn't want to go to jail." That's the kind of rational logic exhibited by criminals.
So much bad policy comes from this kind of thinking. People do ten seconds of "common sense" reasoning, and then figure they've got the whole thing worked out.
Similarly lazy/sloppy reasoning leads to dumb thinking like "universal basic income is a bad idea" or "rent control ought to work."
There is a study I heard of which would be nicely examined here, which is that if you want crime to decrease what you have to do is (1) not increase the penalties, but (2) increase the chances of being caught.
The repubs live off of "(1)" but my anecdotal analysis also shows that criminals are (i) really dumb, as a group, and (ii) operate, for the most part, exactly how that study showed, which is they engage in crime where they think there is less of a chance of getting caught.
That's why most shoplifting is by employees of the store, to take just one example.
There have been many studies looking at deterrence in contexts from cookie-stealing toddlers to yummy-snatching dogs to serial killers that have all concluded that certainty of punishment is a much more effective punishment than severity of punishment.
In other words, a would-be criminal will be deterred if he believes he is likely to be caught, even if the punishment is mild, whereas he won't be deterred if he believes he is unlikely to be caught, even if the punishment if caught will be severe.
Unfortunately "catch more of them" is easy to say but hard to do.
Criminologist have long argued that criminals are unaware of the exact punishment they faced if they get caught, after all they are not planning in getting caught. I would think there are other reasons behind the jump (Covid?). Without further input it is hard to glean what’s up.
That's one of the worst graphs I've ever seen. The title says "As % of national property crime rate". So how do you get negative numbers? Is there negative crime in California? If it's percent change, it's not stated in the graph a percent of what. It would be clear if you just plotted what it says in the title. I've been looking at this graph for 10 minutes and I still can't figure out what you're showing. Grade: F.
As a California resident, I wonder if your conclusion is based on skewed accounting. When you state, "property crime in California was dropping faster than the national rate", this is based on reported crime.
The significance of my statement is as follows. Ten years ago, if my car was broken into (or the catalytic convertor, maybe even my store etc), I could likely get a police report for my insurance company. Today, the same break in to my car, does not generate a police report. Thus, even the accounting for a crime, versus the actual event, is skewing the analysis. Basically, the data is misleading.
Has your insurance company stopped asking for police reports?
That's because we moved the reporting to shops and insurance companies, rather than requiring people jump through hoops before they're made whole.
Is this reports or convictions?
If conviction then the legal process for a misdemeanor is simpler than for a. more serious crime.
So what do these numbers represent?
So, Kevin, got per-state lead levels over time at your disposal?
It's not at all clear what this chart is depicting.
But....should we expect property crime in CA to fall faster than property crime in the US for 24 consective years? This seems very.....tenous?
Even if we assume that the confusing chart shows something that indicates that the legislation in 2014 caused an increase in property crime, its not clear that CA is worse off because of it. Nor is it clear that a new legislative measure will improve the lives of Californians.
But we have a chart created to show a thing in 2014. So there's that. Gotta pass a new law if you have a chart that shows a thing.
“ Proposition 47 reclassified some felony crimes and made it so individuals who commit certain nonviolent drug and property crimes, including shoplifting where merchandise under $950 was stolen and simple drug possession, would be sentenced on misdemeanor charges instead of felony charges.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-12/what-is-california-proposition-47-how-proposition-36-could-change-crime-sentencing-drugs-theft
A lot of comments here are talking about catalytic converter theft or electronic device theft. Those are still felonies under prop 47, assuming the items are worth over $950. And misdemeanors are still crimes. And an increased number of crimes doesn’t necessarily mean an increased number of criminals. This might well be an enforcement problem.
And multiple thefts become a felony, and if you campare the price limits... they're the same in say, Texas.
This past year, I found a big laundry tub on wheels abandoned near my property. The police came out and recovered it. It had been stolen from a laundromat. The thief was captured on security camera footage. The police said that the man was homeless, and also a problem person. They were quite familiar with this person. They said he would maybe spend a few days in jail, then come back out, with his habits unchanged.
Meanwhile, I encountered more homeless people who were NOT causing any such problems. Four of them. I wish them well. So, I don't want to overgeneralize to "homeless people are a problem". No. THIS homeless person is a problem, and his habits aren't changing.
So, that seems to me like the sort of phenomenon that could drive the data you report. A few people, doing a lot more property crime. I feel we need to develop some new tools and/or strategies for dealing with such people.
I mean, we have a lot of new tools for our higher status citizens: Home confinement, tracers, weekend service, and so on. We need some tools for the sort of person I describe above.