California residents facing allegations related to specific drug and retail theft offenses may now encounter more stringent penalties due to a recent ballot initiative complemented by new legislation signed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
In November, voters largely supported Proposition 36, which introduces important modifications to the state’s legal framework.
One significant change allows prosecutors to label individuals convicted of their third drug-related offense as subject to a treatment-mandated felony. This classification requires offenders to undergo substance abuse or mental health treatment rather than serving up to three years in jail or prison.
Moreover, the newly enacted law mandates that courts inform individuals found guilty of distributing certain drugs, including fentanyl, about the potential for murder charges should their actions result in fatalities linked to the illegal drugs sold.
Penalties may also be more severe for petty theft and shoplifting crimes, with individuals facing up to three years of imprisonment if they have been previously convicted of similar offenses on two occasions.
This month, several district attorneys and law enforcement agencies, including those from San Francisco, Solano, and Shasta counties, announced arrests that they plan to prosecute under the revised legal framework.
The new proposition partially negates aspects of a measure from a decade ago, known as Proposition 47, which aimed to lessen penalties for certain minor drug and theft offenses by changing them from felonies to misdemeanors. This earlier initiative sought to reform public safety approaches and alleviate the overpopulation of prisons, a situation exacerbated by stringent crime policies initiated in the 1980s.
Supporters of Prop. 36, including various prosecutors and law enforcement officials, argue that the previous reforms led to a cycle of repeat offenses without adequate accountability.
“This indicates a clear public demand for a different strategy regarding public safety, particularly concerning hard drugs, retail theft, and fentanyl,” remarked Jeff Reisig, the District Attorney of Yolo County.
Critics of the new initiative have expressed concerns that it might exacerbate issues related to homelessness, drug misuse, and crime. They argue it could result in reduced funding for treatment programs and escalate court-related costs potentially reaching hundreds of millions.
Behavioral health authorities across California have raised alarms regarding the feasibility of implementing a treatment-mandated felony, noting the lack of necessary resources in many counties to deliver the large-scale treatment promised by the initiative.
Cristine Soto DeBerry, the executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance of California—a nonprofit that opposed Prop. 36—asserted that the real mandate was for addressing issues holistically and providing support services to those in need. “I don’t think the public’s intention was to increase prison populations,” she added, emphasizing the need for careful consideration by those charged with enforcing the new law about the needs of their communities.
Despite efforts to keep Prop. 36 off the ballot, including considerations for a competing measure, Governor Newsom instead enacted a suite of ten bills in August aimed at facilitating the prosecution of retail and vehicle theft, which will take effect on January 1.
While the governor did not allocate funding to oppose Prop. 36, he criticized it as an “unfunded mandate” reminiscent of the War on Drugs era. Nevertheless, proponents such as Reisig are hopeful that existing funding opportunities, such as a $6.4 billion mental health bond approved by voters earlier this year, can be utilized.
“I urge lawmakers and the governor to acknowledge this mandate and work together towards fulfilling the promises made by Prop. 36,” Reisig concluded.
