Where Los Angeles County district attorney candidates stand on Proposition 47

As part of this newspaper’s endorsement process, we invited the candidates for Los Angeles District Attorney to provide their written thoughts, only lightly edited for length, on major public policy matters.

Here we present their responses to the question: Give us your assessment of Proposition 47. How do you intend to handle cases subject to the measure?

George Gascón: Proposition 47 — which received the backing of nearly 60% of California voters — reduced simple possession of drugs for personal use from a felony to a misdemeanor, and increased the felony theft threshold from $400 to $950 to keep pace with inflation. The goal of Proposition 47 was to help reduce our prison population here in California. Reclassifying certain crimes as misdemeanors rather than felonies does not mean those crimes are not prosecuted. They are and they should be. Some believe that this law passed nine years ago is the cause for the uptick in property theft. This is false. Studies show Proposition 47 and similar laws across 37 other U.S. states did not increase property crime. Here in California, property crime has fallen dramatically since the law was passed in 2014. And one study found the reforms saved taxpayers nearly $600 million in reduced prison costs.

Craig Mitchell: Several provisions of Proposition 47 need to be rewritten. First, repeat theft offenders must be subject to felony prosecution, regardless of the value of the property taken. Also, illegal drug possession must be handled in a manner where the addict is given a strong incentive to seek treatment. The loss of human potential to drug addiction is a phenomenon that cannot be allowed to continue.

Debra Archuleta: I intend to follow the law as written, subject to future legislative changes. Further, I intend to file misdemeanor cases pursuant to the Prop. 47 guidelines and seek appropriate bail in these cases. Additionally, I believe that drug use and addiction needs to be dealt with through appropriate rehabilitative measures with consequences for failure to participate in these programs.

Maria Ramirez: Proposition 47 was passed at a time when it was believed that punishments for lower-level offenses were disproportionately high. While the intent may have been appropriate, Prop 47 did not consider the long-term consequences of reducing consequences for recidivists. To address the current increase in theft related offenses in L.A. County, I would consider proposing the reinstatement of Penal Code section 666 in instances where there are two or more theft convictions within five years of the current offense. I would also consider exempting certain crimes from Proposition 47 that are creating public safety risks to our county today.

John McKinney: I have spoken out extensively about the perils of Proposition 47. Proposition 47 is particularly problematic for reducing most drug possession crimes to misdemeanors and thereby eviscerating our drug treatment courts. I have already publicly called for the repealing of this proposition or significant modifications that allowed for felony drug treatment sentencing after two or more prior drug-related convictions. I also believe that a similar change is needed when it comes to petty thefts. I support amending Prop. 47 to allow for felony theft sentencing when a person commits a theft after suffering two or more prior convictions for theft. Without any changes to the law, I am bound to follow the law as it currently stands.

Eric Siddall:  Proposition 47 needs to be modified to deter repeat offenders. I have worked on legislation to do so. That said we cannot simply blame every rise in crime on Prop. 47. We know that it had a modest impact on property crime, but less of an influence on violent crime. Nor can we excuse our lack of action because of Prop. 47. Existing laws, employed correctly, can hold smash-and-grab robbers and other habitual offenders accountable.

This is where leadership and experience matters. Los Angeles needs a chief prosecutor who understands the law, knows where the resources are to employ a comprehensive strategy to break-up smash-and-grab crime rings, and cares about protecting small businesses. As a 16-year veteran violent crimes prosecutor who has worked with the state legislature, the county board of supervisors, and federal and state law enforcement agencies, I know how to get this job done.

Dan Kapelovitz: Many of my opponents are now advocating to lower the dollar amount threshold needed to make theft a felony. But the vast majority of cases involve either minor offenses, such as a person taking an item to eat from a grocery store, which most reasonable people believe should be treated as a misdemeanor, or they are relatively major offenses, such as a group of people taking a large amount of, say, expensive clothing, which almost always results in meeting the $950 amount and thus are charged as felonies. The “rational criminal” who goes into a store and steals $949 worth of goods is a myth.

The mass-incarcerators also want to make it so that someone convicted of petty theft multiple times can be charged with a felony. But reasonable people don’t think that a person who steals a candy bar three times should go to prison for several years.

Jonathan Hatami: My plan: we clearly need a bi-partisan bill to amend Prop. 47 or even repeal it, bringing back Drug Court to help our Angelenos that are homeless and addicted to drugs and reduce the theft threshold from $950 back down to $400 for felonies to help our communities and businesses. I have been endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats. And as DA, I can and will bring together a coalition of elected leaders who value public safety over partisan politics and amend or repeal Prop 47 to make it work for all Angelenos.

In the meantime, I will work together with our law enforcement partners and business leaders and charge organized retail theft, conspiracy, grand theft, burglary and robbery felonies when appropriate and when we have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I will also work with my business leaders, community members, and law enforcement partners to curb the epidemic of catch and release regarding retail theft crimes by filing bail deviation motions where possible and reasonable in order to stop repeat offenders.

Nathan Hochman: While some aspects of Proposition 47 were originally well-intentioned, for instance lowering possession of marijuana to a misdemeanor, this proposition co-authored by George Gascon has had numerous disastrous consequences associated with homelessness, shoplifting, drug crimes, and property crimes. Not only did Proposition 47 lower to misdemeanor drug crimes dealing with marijuana, with the same brush it converted felony drug crimes dealing with fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and other powerful, addictive drugs to misdemeanors as well. As a result, drug courts, which used to thrive and pose a viable alternative to hundreds of those with substance abuse disorders that committed crimes but wanted to avoid state prison by completing a drug program, no longer exist after Proposition 47. Moreover, by raising the felony threshold for property crimes to $950 without allowing certain thefts to be aggregated, Proposition 47 created the situation where thieves are not deterred from entering convenience stores, walking out with just under $950, and not facing time in jail.

To fix Proposition 47, we need to create, at a minimum, a serial misdemeanor/felony statute that makes clear that thefts under $950 can be aggregated over a certain time frame (180 days or a year), which then become felonies. And we need to revisit re-instituting misdemeanor/felony wobblers for certain drug crimes like the possession of highly dangerous and addictive drugs. I will enforce Prop. 47 while it is the law at the same time seeking significant modifications or its repeal.

Jeff Chemerinsky: I fully support Proposition 47’s reforms. I do not support rolling it back. I do not believe that Proposition 47, for example, is responsible for increased smash and grab robberies. There is a lot of misinformation about Proposition 47. The reality is that 38 states have felony thresholds higher than the $950 threshold in California, as set by Proposition 47. I do not believe that Proposition 47 hampers the District Attorney’s ability to prosecute crime, keep our communities safe, or hold people accountable.