CA Proposition 47 Unintended Consequences

[pcgeek11]

I saw this on the news tonight and read up some on it. It seems like this could in the end be more trouble than it helps. This is a good article and a good read. It looks like IMO it encourages low level crime and drug use. Prison over crowding is a problem, but this is just changing the problem, by not having any deterrent to crime in place as long as you stay within a dollar amount for any single incident.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/

It’s too early to know how much crime can be attributed to Prop 47, police chiefs caution, but what they do know is that instead of arresting criminals and removing them from the streets, their officers have been dealing with the same offenders again and again. Caught in possession of drugs? That usually means a misdemeanor citation under Prop 47, or essentially a ticket. Caught stealing something worth less than $950? That means a ticket, too. Caught using some of that $950 to buy more drugs? Another citation.


“It’s a slap on the wrist the first time and the third time and the 30th time, so it’s a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card,” said Shelley Zimmerman, who became San Diego’s police chief in March 2014. “We’re catching and releasing the same people over and over.”

Officers have begun calling those people “frequent fliers,” offenders who knew the specifics of Prop 47 and how to use it to their advantage. There was the thief in San Bernardino County who had been caught shoplifting with his calculator, which he said he used to make sure he never stole the equivalent of $950 or more. There was the “Hoover Heister” in Riverside, who was arrested for stealing vacuum cleaners and other appliances 13 different times over the course of three months, each misdemeanor charge followed by his quick release.

 

[michal1980]

further proof liberals don't care about crime.

 

[boomerang]

What's amazing is that our "leaders" seem to possess not one lick of common sense. No understanding of human nature as it applies to the mind of a criminal. As such they pass laws with no understanding or concern for the consequences.

 

[PokerGuy]

Reading that article and their description of the outreach workers trying to help some of the homeless drug addicts etc, it reminded me a lot of "the walking dead". These are shells of human beings, addicted to meth or whatever other terrible substance, completely unable to help themselves, and beyond the help of anyone else. They shuffle along surviving any way they can, pretty sad really.

Whoever crafted that law is a complete idiot. There's nothing wrong with focusing more on treatment than punishment, but there needs to be an escalation path built in -- if the behavior continues there needs to be a deterrent at some point. As it stands, there is absolutely no deterrent that prevents people from stealing less than $950 worth of goods. The worst case scenario is they get caught and end up with a ticket. They do it again 5 minutes later. Rinse, repeat.

The obvious answer is to have escalating punishment so repeat offenders can be taken off the street.

 

[1prophet]

I saw this on the news tonight and read up some on it. It seems like this could in the end be more trouble than it helps. This is a good article and a good read. It looks like IMO it encourages low level crime and drug use. Prison over crowding is a problem, but this is just changing the problem, by not having any deterrent to crime in place as long as you stay within a dollar amount for any single incident.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/10/10/prop47/

Unless the underlying causes that keep these people in this cycle of crime are addressed these type of laws are going to eventually be an effective political tool for the "tough on crime" type politicians who will gain a strong position which they then can use in order to usher in laws more draconian than what were there before.

Here is an example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTdUQ9SYhUw

 

[SViscusi]

What's amazing is that our "leaders" seem to possess not one lick of common sense. No understanding of human nature as it applies to the mind of a criminal. As such they pass laws with no understanding or concern for the consequences.

The voters voted this in.

 

[PokerGuy]

The voters voted this in.

Yup, stupid voters take most of the blame, but whoever crafted that prop 47 the way it is was an idiot. I'm all for evaluating punishment and ways to reduce needless incarceration, but there needs to be escalating punishment somewhere or it will be a permanent incentive to keep committing petty theft etc with no consequences. Not that jail is a great solution either, but there has to be something in place that either a) forces people to get help/treatment to deal with their issues, or b) gets them off the street so they can't victimize others.

 

[boomerang]

The voters voted this in.

Yes, the mindset has become common and it's growing. Similar situations are becoming prevalent on a national scale. Lunacy like this is supported by voters and politician's alike. We are reaping the rewards of a dumbed-down electorate. Our politician's are elected from that same dumbed-down electorate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[fskimospy]

Ballot initiatives have a long history of unintended consequences. I long ago decided the only ballot initiative I would support would be the abolition of ballot initiatives. The question is whether or not it's better to have laws made by the corrupt few, or the retarded many. Turns out the corrupt few are best.

Assuming I take the article's word for it, and that is a bit of a stretch, this is just an example of a stupid and liberal ballot initiative. There are plenty of incredibly stupid conservative ballot initiatives as well. (Prop 13, for example). The problem is with the initiative system.

 

[soulcougher73]

war on drugs lol such a failure and waste of money

 

[Greenman]

Ballot initiatives have a long history of unintended consequences. I long ago decided the only ballot initiative I would support would be the abolition of ballot initiatives. The question is whether or not it's better to have laws made by the corrupt few, or the retarded many. Turns out the corrupt few are best.

Assuming I take the article's word for it, and that is a bit of a stretch, this is just an example of a stupid and liberal ballot initiative. There are plenty of incredibly stupid conservative ballot initiatives as well. (Prop 13, for example). The problem is with the initiative system.

I was right there with you until you mentioned prop 13. Prop 13 is the best thing that ever happened to California. It was an absolutely necessary solution to a government that was drunk on spending. I would have been taxed out out of my own home without it.

 

[Genx87]

Murrica. What is wrong with Murrica when we cant lock up people in cages for petty crime?

 

[fskimospy]

I was right there with you until you mentioned prop 13. Prop 13 is the best thing that ever happened to California. It was an absolutely necessary solution to a government that was drunk on spending. I would have been taxed out out of my own home without it.

No, prop 13 is one of the more foolish ballot initiatives in history. Here's a list of just some of the bad outcomes from it:

1. It drastically inhibited labor mobility. You don't want to penalize someone for moving.

2. It drastically advantages people with assets over people with income. There's no economic incentive for this.

3. It undercut the ability of local governments to fund education which made them dependent on state revenues.

4. This led to prop 98, which was another incredibly dumb proposition.

5. It opened up a gaping loophole where businesses could avoid many of its effects, further distorting local revenue collection.

All of this so that people could 'stay in their homes'. What that actually means however, is 'tax advantages for people who have seen the value of their real estate assets massively increase'. It might be true that if you bought your house for $100k years ago that you can't afford the property taxes now that it's worth $1.5 million. You know what you get as a consolation prize for that? $1.4 million.

One of the dumbest propositions of all time.

 

[K1052]

Ballot initiatives have a long history of unintended consequences. I long ago decided the only ballot initiative I would support would be the abolition of ballot initiatives. The question is whether or not it's better to have laws made by the corrupt few, or the retarded many. Turns out the corrupt few are best.

Assuming I take the article's word for it, and that is a bit of a stretch, this is just an example of a stupid and liberal ballot initiative. There are plenty of incredibly stupid conservative ballot initiatives as well. (Prop 13, for example). The problem is with the initiative system.

This basically. It's a really terrible way to govern.

 

[realibrad]

This basically. It's a really terrible way to govern.

The difference is the feedback is far more direct. We have a problem of uninformed voters because all the work is done by the elected officials. Very few know or even care about details, but they care about the personality people project. Whit the ability to make direct changes, people get to see the impact of their opinions. When people realize that they made a mistake, they cant blame politics. In the long run, this should work better for many things.

In my opinion, people are far too sheltered from their bad decisions. I dont want people to suffer, but I also dont want others to suffer for an individuals bad actions. So when farmers in CA use up all the water because of dumb incentives, the farmers should suffer with higher prices. Instead, the corrupt few at the top who can be bought fight that and make everyone have to carry their burden.

 

[fskimospy]

The difference is the feedback is far more direct. We have a problem of uninformed voters because all the work is done by the elected officials. Very few know or even care about details, but they care about the personality people project. Whit the ability to make direct changes, people get to see the impact of their opinions. When people realize that they made a mistake, they cant blame politics. In the long run, this should work better for many things.

In my opinion, people are far too sheltered from their bad decisions. I dont want people to suffer, but I also dont want others to suffer for an individuals bad actions. So when farmers in CA use up all the water because of dumb incentives, the farmers should suffer with higher prices. Instead, the corrupt few at the top who can be bought fight that and make everyone have to carry their burden.

I don't think that's why we have uninformed voters, at least not uninformed in this sense. Actually researching and understanding the effects of legislation is a really time consuming and complex process. It's just not realistic for the average voter to individually educate themselves on the issues. All you end up with is things that sound good on the surface but are horrible in practice.

California has been running it's proposition system for more than a century now. When is this 'long run' going to happen?

 

[K1052]

The difference is the feedback is far more direct. We have a problem of uninformed voters because all the work is done by the elected officials. Very few know or even care about details, but they care about the personality people project. Whit the ability to make direct changes, people get to see the impact of their opinions. When people realize that they made a mistake, they cant blame politics. In the long run, this should work better for many things.

In my opinion, people are far too sheltered from their bad decisions. I dont want people to suffer, but I also dont want others to suffer for an individuals bad actions. So when farmers in CA use up all the water because of dumb incentives, the farmers should suffer with higher prices. Instead, the corrupt few at the top who can be bought fight that and make everyone have to carry their burden.

This all presumes that the initiative process itself isn't corrupt, which I can tell you at least in SF is most definitely not the case. A small number of monied insiders know exactly how to game the system to produce their desired outcomes though deception and trickery. You haven't solved a corruption problem...you've just moved it.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think that's why we have uninformed voters, at least not uninformed in this sense. Actually researching and understanding the effects of legislation is a really time consuming and complex process. It's just not realistic for the average voter to individually educate themselves on the issues. All you end up with is things that sound good on the surface but are horrible in practice.

California has been running it's proposition system for more than a century now. When is this 'long run' going to happen?

But that is the point. People need to realize that shit is complex, and that action before understanding is usually bad. As I said, people don't elect people on their ability to understand things and get things done, they elect people on how they seem as a person. Intelligence is at the bottom of most people's lists. The realization that shit is hard to figure out should help incentivize people to place it a little higher on their list.

Most of the recent props that were passed actually sparked much bigger things. The biggest one that I can think of recently was the ban on gay marriage. That prop got the nation talking and I think really helped spur equality. It was already in motion granted, but it showed that people should not wait.

There was also the legalization of medical marijuana which has helped to get other states to do the same which has had huge benefits for people.

There can be bad and there can be good. People need to learn from their choices.

 

[trenchfoot]

Adding a three strikes clause would help get repeat offenders off the streets?

Asking because I'm not privy to the fine print of this proposition.

 

[realibrad]

This all presumes that the initiative process itself isn't corrupt, which I can tell you at least in SF is most definitely not the case. A small number of monied insiders know exactly how to game the system to produce their desired outcomes though deception and trickery. You haven't solved a corruption problem...you've just moved it.

And made it far more expensive. To buy off a politician is far cheaper than buying off millions of people. You might be able to market to them, but the feedback loop should help wake people up.

To me, its either allowing corruption or not protecting people from decisions so they can learn.

 

[realibrad]

Adding a three strikes clause would help get repeat offenders off the streets?

Asking because I'm not privy to the fine print of this proposition.

The problem is that they are out of room and the current system costs a shit load of money. They cant get them off the streets without displacing other people.

The problem here is that they have done very little to deal with the problem of what is causing this. They have only addressed the thing that was costing them money in the short run.

 

[K1052]

And made it far more expensive. To buy off a politician is far cheaper than buying off millions of people. You might be able to market to them, but the feedback loop should help wake people up.

To me, its either allowing corruption or not protecting people from decisions so they can learn.

Not really. They strategically target initiatives at elections that have very low turnout so the costs to get something done is actually rather low.

You have an overly optimistic view of how this kind of stuff actually works in practice.

 

[fskimospy]

But that is the point. People need to realize that shit is complex, and that action before understanding is usually bad. As I said, people don't elect people on their ability to understand things and get things done, they elect people on how they seem as a person. Intelligence is at the bottom of most people's lists. The realization that shit is hard to figure out should help incentivize people to place it a little higher on their list.

This has never caused people to do this in the past, so why would that be different now?

Most of the recent props that were passed actually sparked much bigger things. The biggest one that I can think of recently was the ban on gay marriage. That prop got the nation talking and I think really helped spur equality. It was already in motion granted, but it showed that people should not wait.

There was also the legalization of medical marijuana which has helped to get other states to do the same which has had huge benefits for people.

There can be bad and there can be good. People need to learn from their choices.

I think it's pretty clear that people don't learn from their choices. Gay marriage and pot legalization were easy because they were very straightforward. Criminal justice policy, tax policy, bullet train funding, etc, are never straightforward and these propositions cause huge problems.

From a utility analysis there is functionally no benefit to an individual voter educating themselves about the issue in order to vote better on a ballot proposition as their vote comprises much to little of the total for their education to matter. Expecting people to do this is expecting them to act economically irrationally and that's almost always a bad basis for a legislative system, haha.

This is in fact one of the big problems that representative democracy was specifically designed to solve, the irrationality of the expectation that individual voters could be educated on all the things they might need to vote on.

 

[realibrad]

This has never caused people to do this in the past, so why would that be different now?



I think it's pretty clear that people don't learn from their choices. Gay marriage and pot legalization were easy because they were very straightforward. Criminal justice policy, tax policy, bullet train funding, etc, are never straightforward and these propositions cause huge problems.

From a utility analysis there is functionally no benefit to an individual voter educating themselves about the issue in order to vote better on a ballot proposition as their vote comprises much to little of the total for their education to matter. Expecting people to do this is expecting them to act economically irrationally and that's almost always a bad basis for a legislative system, haha.

This is in fact one of the big problems that representative democracy was specifically designed to solve, the irrationality of the expectation that individual voters could be educated on all the things they might need to vote on.

I might not be understanding you correctly, but are you saying that there is nothing to gain in overall utility by having an educated voter? That would seem to fly in the face of the idea that education creates a better society.

Am I missing your point?

 

[realibrad]

Not really. They strategically target initiatives at elections that have very low turnout so the costs to get something done is actually rather low.

You have an overly optimistic view of how this kind of stuff actually works in practice.

Ballots and elections are 2 different things. Also, we are talking about state not local props. If a local prop is targeted, it does not effect the over all state very much. If you are saying that the corruption could go from one small election to another, then you would have to do that all over the state and that would be hugely expensive.