As California approaches its next election, one significant measure on the ballot is Prop 36, which seeks to reclassify certain misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies. This proposal is a big debate across the state.

If Prop 36 is passed, it would increase penalties for specific theft and drug offenses. A key feature of the measure is the introduction of a “treatment-mandated felony” category. Individuals who do not contest their charges could opt for drug treatment instead of serving prison time. However, failure to complete this treatment could result in a prison sentence of up to three years.

Prop 36 is largely seen as a response to the perceived rise in crime since voters approved Prop 47 ten years ago, which was the opposite. Prop 47 aimed to reduce prison overcrowding by downgrading certain crimes to misdemeanors. For example, shoplifting under $950 is not seen as a crime. Since then, many officials have pointed to increased rates of property crime and homelessness, especially during the pandemic, as justification for this new measure. Reports show a significant rise in shoplifting and commercial burglaries, which may prompt calls for stricter laws.

Supporters of Prop 36 say that the proposition addresses the homelessness crisis by linking drug dependence to street living, suggesting that tougher penalties could compel individuals into treatment. Supporters also argue it will provide a balanced approach between previous tough-on-crime policies and the more lenient stance taken by Prop 47, which they claim has created loopholes exploited by repeat offenders.

Supporters include big retailers like Walmart and Target, along with various law enforcement organizations and the California Republican Party. Walmart donated $3.58 Million to support this proposition. Home Depot and Target each donated $1 million. In total the donations are at 15 million dollars towards Prop 36.

Opponents of Prop 36 say that research does not support the notion that harsher punishments deter crime or help individuals leave the streets. Another argument against Prop 36 is that the financial implications could divert significant funds from essential services like schools and healthcare, leading to further societal issues. Additionally they argue Prop 36 represents a step backward into outdated “War on Drugs” policies that many believe California rejected with Prop 47.

Notable opponents include Governor Gavin Newsom and various civil rights organizations, emphasizing a need for more rehabilitative approaches rather than punitive ones. Patty Quillin donated $1.5 million and Stacy H. Stussermann donated $1 million to oppose the proposition. 

As the discussion surrounding Proposition 36 heats up, it’s clear that the measure has far-reaching implications for California’s criminal justice system, public health, and community safety. Students and young voters should consider both sides of the argument as they prepare to cast their ballots. The outcome could redefine how the state addresses crime, drug treatment, and homelessness for years to come.