For the first time since Proposition 36 passed overwhelmingly — 68% to 32% — in November, Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly addressed the matter.
At a press conference in crime-racked Oakland, the governor reiterated some of the same concerns about the anti-crime measure that we made in our editorial opposing it.
“Prop. 36 never included organized retail theft, it never addressed that issue,” Newsom said, per the Sacramento Bee. “It never addressed the issue of vehicle crimes. … (I)t “locks out money because at the same time it cuts drug treatment money for local governments. That’s a conundrum for local municipalities, and one that I’m very concerned about.”
Newsom pointed to a crime package he signed that addresses the recent crime wave without undermining Proposition 47, which turned low-level theft and drug possession offenses into misdemeanors. We had supported that measure, but agreed that a decade later it needed targeted reform. It seemed obvious that district attorneys needed the authority to more easily charge with felonies serial thieves who went from one store to another stealing just under the felony threshold amount.
We disagreed with Proposition 36 primarily because it allows prosecutors to charge simple drug possession as a felony punishable up to several years in prison. Individuals facing such a penalty must complete drug treatment to be exempted from imprisonment. While that sounds vaguely understandable on its face, implementation matters. Scenarios in which people are imprisoned or jailed for the sole offense of drug possession are a far greater injustice than the crime of drug possession.
Understandably, though, the public has grown tired of crime issues, of having to increasingly buy goods that are locked up behind glass and the sight of drug-addicted vagrants on street across California.
Per that Bee report, Newsom admitted he didn’t have the “bandwidth” to actively oppose it as it headed to the ballot. He did, however, try some failed political stunts (adding a poison pill to his legislative package, proposing an alternate ballot measure) that convinced the public he wasn’t too proactive about the crime problem. We criticized Newsom at the time for this effort, writing, “Democrats bungled their approach to this entire issue.”
Passage of Prop. 36, in this context of poorly addressed problems and ineffectual political leadership, is understandable.
The Bee reported many agencies have reassured the public that they will implement Prop. 36 in a measured way and will prioritize treatment for nonviolent drug users. “For people who need the help, we’re going to get them that help,” said Sacramento County Supervisor Rich Desmond. “We’re not going to criminalize addiction. We are going to use this as an opportunity to help people.” That’s encouraging.
Instead of engaging in sour grapes, Newsom should explain how he will help law-enforcement agencies implement the new law in the most-reasonable way possible.
It’s time for some sensible middle ground on crime issues.