Pubdate: Thu, 04 Sep 2014
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2014 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: C.W. Nevius

TOUGH-ON-CRIME CROWD MUM ON PROP. 47

Everyone keeps waiting for the backlash, the pulpit pounding, the outrage.

Proposition 47, an initiative on the state ballot, will soften 
criminal charges for nonviolent crimes, like petty theft and drug 
possession. Instead of a felony, those crimes will be misdemeanors.

To put it in San Francisco terms, that means if a police officer 
encounters someone shooting up heroin or smoking crack on the street, 
instead of facing prison, the suspect will be cited for a misdemeanor 
and probably referred to counseling and treatment.

In these Tea Party times, that sounds like a chance to cue up the 
"coddling the criminals" script. Surely this kind of lefty-liberal 
concept will run into a buzz saw of criticism. Nope. "I think what is 
fascinating is that there seems to be almost no opposition to this," 
says Barry Krisberg, a lecturer in residence at UC Berkeley Law 
school. "You'd think in the usual California politics you'd have the 
right saying this and the left saying something else. But there's 
been no campaigning (in opposition) to speak of, no one is spending 
any money on defeating it and the polls have been running 60 percent positive."

Yet state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, tried to get something 
like this passed twice in the Legislature and was turned back each 
time. This may be one of those moments when the general public has 
gotten ahead of the politicians. State Senate President Pro Tem 
Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said as much at a Chronicle 
editorial board meeting.

"Why is this an initiative?" he asked. "Because the political 
pressures are such that it is hard to make these changes. But the 
public is with us."

True. A July Field Poll found support for Prop. 47 running at 57 
percent. Perhaps more significantly, campaign financial filings up to 
August 21 show the pro-47 side has raised more than $3 million and 
the opposition just $8,000.

So this looks like an idea whose time has come, but why now?

One obvious answer is simple frustration.

"The biggest single thing driving this is a real change of opinion on 
drugs," says Krisberg. "In the '80s and '90s, the reaction to 
narcotic drugs was: This is terrible, horrible, we've got to stamp it out."

Now, says San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon, who helped 
qualify the proposition for the ballot, people are having second thoughts.

"What we have been doing hasn't worked," he said. "We started a war 
on drugs and now drug availability is greater, drugs are cheaper than 
they were 30 years ago, and the purity is higher."

There are other factors, too. Increasingly, Californians do not see a 
felony sentence as a deterrent, or a solution, but an entry to a 
revolving door at state prisons. Fully 70 percent of those sent to 
prison return. That created the overcrowding crisis and a black hole 
of state spending, says Lenore Anderson, executive director of 
Californians for Safety and Justice, which is pushing Prop 47.

"Since 1980, spending for prisons has gone up 1,500 percent," she 
said, "and after all this time we have 22 new prisons and one new university."

Anderson says there's another key statistic. The insistence on 
prosecuting "minor" crimes like shoplifting, forgery and possession 
of narcotics as felonies, has touched everyday lives.

"At this point, one in 12 Americans has a felony conviction in their 
own family," she said. "Everyone has a story. Somebody got stacked up 
on some petty thing, went to prison and couldn't get a job when they 
got out. We are at a point where people see that as an overreach. A 
felony is a serious, lifetime violation. Let's be sure it means that."

Supporters are quick to point out that felons convicted of sex crimes 
would not be eligible - a key component, as Steinberg says. That 
would also apply to the 7,000 to 10,000 inmates who could apply to 
have their sentences changed to a misdemeanor.

And that brings us to the real kicker. Estimates of the money saved 
range up to $300 million, and a quarter of that is specifically 
earmarked for schools, particularly for at-risk kids. No wonder the 
public likes the idea.

Of course, there is one other possibility: Never underestimate voter apathy.

"Is the public paying attention?" asks Krisberg. "I don't think so. I 
think there is a strong dose of people either not knowing what (47) 
is, or not paying attention."

Maybe so. But as Krisberg also says, if this was seen as a political 
loser, opponents would be shouting objections from the rooftops.

"The way to get people to pay attention is to have some pretty 
high-visibility people, i.e. public officials, out beating the drums 
against it."

Instead - virtual silence.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom