# data[].attributes.body
source 21

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act--Prop 47 will ensure that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses and will maximize alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime. The savings generated will be invested in prevention and support programs in K-12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment. Prop 47 will change low-level nonviolent crimes such as simple drug possession and petty theft from felonies to misdemeanors; sentences for people convicted of dangerous crimes like rape, murder, and child molestation will not be changed. The League believes alternatives to imprisonment should be explored and utilized, taking into consideration the circumstances and nature of the crime.

The chief basis of our support for this measure is the League's Sentencing Policy position adopted in 2012. The growing costs of incarceration and the impact on budget decisions have been a concern for several years. Prop 47 reduces the penalty for certain nonviolent offenses, including simple drug possession and petty theft, to a misdemeanor. One of the major upsides of this is avoiding incarceration of nonviolent first offenders with hardened criminals. Counseling, community supervision and community service increase the possibility of rehabilitation and lower the risk of recidivism.

Savings from this proposal, which could easily be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, will be directed to a new fund, the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund," where they can be devoted to prevention and early intervention programs as well as mental health and drug treatment, all areas that are strongly supported by the LWVC.

There will also be savings to county governments as fewer people are sentenced to jail time or community supervision. While not a part of the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund," this will free more local dollars to help tight county budgets.

For more information about Prop 47, see Proposition 47: Should California Reduce Penalties for Drug and Property Crimes and Invest in Treatment?, California Budget Project, September 2014, www.cbp.org.

Read here for more information about the Yes on Prop 47 campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Recommendation for Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act--Prop 47 will ensure that prison spending is focused on violent and serious offenses and will maximize alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime. The savings generated will be invested in prevention and support programs in K-12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment.

# data[].attributes.body
source 20

# data[].attributes.body
source 19

# data[].attributes.body
source 19

# data[].attributes.body
sources 18

# data[].attributes.body
source 16

# data[].attributes.body
source 15

# data[].attributes.body
source 14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Certificate of Correctness

I, Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of the State of California, do hereby certify that the measures included herein will be submitted to the electors of the State of California at the General Election to be held throughout the State on November 3, 2020, and that this guide has been correctly prepared in accordance with the law. Witness my hand and the Great Seal of the State in Sacramento, California, this 10th day of August, 2020.

Alex Padilla, Secretary of State

Secretary of State

Dear Fellow Californian,

Free and fair elections are the foundation of American democracy. Throughout our nation's history, we have held elections during times of peace and times of war, during good economic times and during recessions, and even prior pandemics.

In 2020, California elections officials are rising to meet the challenge of COVID-19.

Every registered voter will receive a vote-by-mail ballot.

Every registered voter can sign up to receive vote-by-mail ballot tracking by text (SMS), email, or voice call.

Extra sanitation methods and social distancing measures will be in place at all voting locations.

You can visit for more helpful information and tools for this year's election.

If you have any questions about voter registration or casting your ballot this fall, you can contact the Secretary of State's office by calling toll-free (800) 345-VOTE (8683).

As Secretary of State, my mission is to help every citizen vote safely and securely - but I need your help.

Due to COVID-19, there may be fewer in-person voting locations in your county than normal. You can help your community by voting early this year, either by mail or in person. Smaller crowds and shorter lines on Election Day will help elections officials maintain healthier voting locations and allow poll workers to better serve voters who need assistance - including our neighbors with disabilities, those who need assistance in another language, or those who need a replacement ballot.

Please make a plan now for casting your ballot this fall. The participation of citizens - like you - is what makes our democracy so resilient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I, Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of the State of California, do hereby certify that the measures included herein will be submitted to the electors of the State of California at the General Election to be held throughout the State on November 3, 2020, and that this guide has been correctly prepared in accordance with the law.

# data[].attributes.body
source

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Source: U.S. Census Data and Vera Institute of Justice Graphic: Tal Yellin / CNNMoney

Methodology

Education data was collected by the U.S. Census and covers public school children prekindergarten through twelfth grade. Prison data from the Vera Institute was collected in each state using a department of corrections survey. Corrections departments from 40 states completed and returned the survey, which asked respondents to provide prison expenditures paid by the department of corrections, as well as prison costs paid by other agencies.

The gun control debate has focused on assault rifles - but in many states handguns are responsible for far more deaths.

Death row convicts are still slated for execution at San Quentin State Prison, pictured here, after Californians voted not to abolish capital punishment.

Head Start programs like this one in Pennsylvania will be forced to cut rolls and get fewer children ready for kindergarten, if budget cuts go into effect on March 1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Source: U.S. Census Data and Vera Institute of Justice Graphic: Tal Yellin / CNNMoney Methodology Education data was collected by the U.S. Census and covers public school children prekindergarten through twelfth grade. Prison data from the Vera Institute was collected in each state using a department of corrections survey.

# data[].attributes.body
souce 12

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California voters need to muster the courage their Legislature sadly lacks by approving Proposition 47 this fall. It will bring balance to sentencing, rehabilitation and treatment programs and reduce the state's highest-in-the-nation recidivism rate.

The ballot measure reduces sentencing guidelines for low-level offenders as long as they have no serious or violent crimes on their record. It would apply to inmates already in state prisons, helping the state achieve its Supreme Court-ordered mandate to reduce prison overcrowding to 137 percent of capacity.

Lawmakers gutlessly backed away from similar sentencing reforms for fear of being labeled soft on crime. And speaking of gutless, Attorney General Kamala Harris hasn't taken a position on this proposition, even though it appears to be right in line with her stated beliefs.

Prop 47 will take the savings from reducing the prison population and put them toward mental health, drug rehabilitation, victims' services and school truancy and dropout prevention programs. The independent Legislative Analyst's Office expects it to generate in the "low hundreds of millions of dollars annually," offering significant improvement for these programs.

Opponents, mostly law enforcement officials, are conducting a fear campaign that the initiative will increase crime. It's the same argument they used in 2012 when voters approved Prop. 36, reforming the state's Three Strikes law. But the Stanford Three Strikes Project reports that the recidivism rate of prisoners released early under Prop 36 in 2012 is substantially lower (1.3 percent) than that of all other inmates released from prison over the same period of time (30 percent).

Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen is an exception in the law enforcement view. He says Prop. 47 offers the rare opportunity to break the cycle of crime by providing resources for mental health and drug treatment. He's right. It's insanity to house California prisoners at an average cost of $47,000 a year per inmate for non-violent and non-serious crimes. There's no basis for claiming that prisoners who stay in prison for an additional year commit fewer crimes when they're released.

Rosen points out that prison overcrowding now means California will not have space in its prisons to house violent offenders in future years. It makes far more sense to release prisoners with no history of violence in an orderly fashion instead of having to release prisoners who are the closest to finishing their sentences, even if they're violent.

California has spent the past two decades focusing on arresting and incarcerating criminals. Prop 47 is crime prevention, helping keep criminals from repeat offenses by giving them the education and drug and mental health treatment they need to be productive members of society. We all will be safer. Vote yes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mercury News editorial: Prop. 47 will help California break cycle of crime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California voters need to muster the courage their Legislature sadly lacks by approving Proposition 47 this fall. It will bring balance to sentencing, rehabilitation and treatment programs and reduce the state's highest-in-the-nation recidivism rate. The ballot measure reduces sentencing guidelines for low-level offenders as long as they have no serious or violent crimes on their record.

# data[].attributes.body
source 11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SACRAMENTO - The state is releasing some low-level, nonviolent prisoners early as Gov. Jerry Brown complies with a federal court order to reduce crowding in its lockups - a turning point in the governor's efforts to resolve the issue.

Inmates serving time for certain nonviolent crimes are being discharged days or weeks before they were scheduled to go free, a move that Brown had long resisted but proposed in January and was subsequently ordered by judges to carry out.

Eventually, such prisoners, who are earning time off their sentences with good behavior or rehabilitation efforts, will be able to leave months or even years earlier.

Prison workers, inmates' lawyers and county probation officials said the releases began two weeks ago. Since then, San Bernardino County probation officers said, the number of felons arriving from prison has increased more than two dozen a week, or 30%.

L.A. County Deputy Probation Chief Reaver Bingham said he did not know how many prisoners had been released early to his jurisdiction.

Corrections officials confirmed that some inmates are being released "slightly earlier" but would not say how many or discuss the criteria used to determine who is eligible.

Officials are still working on the terms of other planned steps to reduce crowding, including making more inmates eligible for medical parole and a new release program for those older than 60.

In addition, some second-time offenders who have served half their sentences under the state's three-strikes law could be eligible to leave.

Brown's administration has estimated that 780 inmates could be released under those programs.

Sentence reductions were among the changes Brown offered to make as he sought two more years to reduce prison crowding to a level the judges deem safe. He wants to meet the jurists' targets mostly by placing more felons in privately owned prisons and other facilities.

In February, the judges granted Brown's request and ordered him to "immediately implement" the early releases and add parole options for prisoners who are frail, elderly or serving extended sentences for specific kinds of nonviolent crimes.

Analysts in Brown's administration initially estimated that about 1,400 prisoners would be freed early over two years by being allowed to shave off as much as a third of their sentences with good behavior.

From prison, they follow the normal path to either state parole or county supervision, depending on the crimes they committed.

"Our first 'Whew!' moment was when we realized it was not anybody we wouldn't [be getting] already," said Karen Pank, a lobbyist for California's 58 county probation departments.

More than 17,000 prisoners overall are potentially eligible for reduced sentences, according to the administration's analysis.

Pank said the administration was negotiating with counties over whether to pay them additional money to supervise those who are sent to probation early.

Eligibility rules for the court-ordered parole programs have not been made public. A Board of Parole Hearings meeting on the matter was held last week behind closed doors, according to an agenda posted online by the board.

Ordinarily, such major changes to the state's criminal justice system would be debated before the Legislature, but the federal judges have set aside those requirements.

"We don't have many options to weigh in on the consequences of what is being put in place," Pank said.

If California misses any of the court's interim deadlines for easing crowding, a court-appointed officer has authority to order additional releases.

State lawyers said in an April 15 court filing that officials have already met the court's June 30 benchmark, its first since the judges gave Brown extra time.

The judges set a limit on the inmate population of 143% of the prisons' capacity; the state's attorneys said the latest population was 141%.

Lawyers for prisoners argued in a court motion last week that the state was counting empty beds in a medical prison in calculating its capacity to house inmates, permitting other prisons to remain crowded. The corrections department contends the medical space should be included.

The latest prison population reports from the government show a women's prison in Chowchilla is at 183% of its capacity. Corrections officials have confirmed an inmate lawyer's report that as many as eight women at a time share dorm rooms that have a single toilet, sink and shower.

"There is one person on top of another.... It is a pressure cooker simmering," said attorney Rebekah Evenson of the Prison Law Office, which represents inmates in class-action litigation over prison conditions.

Corrections spokeswoman Krissi Khokhobashvili said crowding in women's prisons will ease when a private lockup in McFarland opens to take 520 female inmates.

In a conference call Tuesday with financial analysts, executives of the company that owns the McFarland facility said it would not be ready to take the first 260 women until the fall.

They said state officials had not yet requested the remaining 260 beds.
paige.stjohn@latimes.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State begins early releases of nonviolent prisoners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SACRAMENTO - The state is releasing some low-level, nonviolent prisoners early as Gov. Jerry Brown complies with a federal court order to reduce crowding in its lockups - a turning point in the governor's efforts to resolve the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
source part of 10

# data[].attributes.body
source 10

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Initiatives are a poor way to do lawmaking, especially when it comes to criminal sentencing laws. It's partly how California got into its current over-incarceration mess, with ballot measures that were public responses to high-profile crimes.

But we've also seen that the preferred way -- the Legislature -- isn't much better. Lawmakers like to write bills that respond to high-profile crimes with get-tough sentences, so they can look like men and women of action, and so they can curry favor with the public and with powerful law enforcement interest groups. Or even other interest groups.

The Legislature is supposed to be more flexible than the initiative process, but it only seems to be able to add crimes and increase sentences, not reduce them, and it never seems to be able to find useful amounts of money to prevent crime, to treat mentally ill and addicted offenders, even to help crime victims.

Lawmakers won't create a sentencing commission to remove the panic and the politics from criminal sentencing. It's the political equivalent of market failure. The regular legislative process won't work. This is what the initiative system is for.

So we have Proposition 47, which will bring some rationality to sentences for low-level crimes. It is likely to slow the flood of low-level criminals into jail and prison, where the data tells us they get worse, not better; and the savings will go to programs for treatment, rehab, truancy prevention and victim services.

As messed up as lawmaking by ballot measure is, California will be better off with Proposition 47 than without it. As it stands now, a person comes out of prison after serving three years for a petty crime and returns to his or her old neighborhood with little or no additional education, decreased job prospects, no place to live and no guidance or assistance on overcoming whatever social problem, behavioral problem, illness or addiction got them into trouble in the first place. The businesses that may have been victimized have no additional protection. We'll finally have funding to take care of those things.

It does not change the ability to charge or convict suspects of date rape or any other violent felony. It does reduce sentences for simple drug possession for use, but not for sale.

Jail and prison cells should be reserved for dangerous and other serious criminals, and resources for less serious offenders should be spent on true corrections -- the kinds of things that voluminous evidence shows us is more effective than incarceration in preventing recidivism.

The Los Angeles Times urges a "yes" vote on Proposition 47.
Twitter: @RGreene2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Prop. 47 will bring some rationality to sentences for low-level crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Initiatives are a poor way to do lawmaking, especially when it comes to criminal sentencing laws. It's partly how California got into its current over-incarceration mess, with ballot measures that were public responses to high-profile crimes. But we've also seen that the preferred way -- the Legislature -- isn't much better.

# data[].attributes.body
source 9

# data[].attributes.body
source 8

# data[].attributes.body
source 7

# data[].attributes.body
source 6

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Proposition 47, the Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative, was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The measure was approved.

Introduction

The initiative reduced the classification of most nonviolent property and drug crimes-including theft and fraud for amounts up to $950-from a felony to a misdemeanor.

What did the measure do?

Classified certain crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant has prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes.

Permitted re-sentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors. Under Proposition 47, 10,000 inmates were eligible for resentencing, according to Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice.

Required a review of criminal history and risk assessment of any individuals before re-sentencing to ensure that they do not pose a risk to the public.

Created a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. The fund was set to receive appropriations based on savings accrued by the state during the fiscal year, as compared to the previous fiscal year, due to the initiative's implementation. Estimates ranged from $150 million to $250 million per year.

Distributed funds from the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund as follows: 25 percent to the Department of Education, 10 percent to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and 65 percent to the Board of State and Community Correction.

Which crimes were affected?

The measure required misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:

Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950

Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950

Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950

Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950

Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950

Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950

Personal use of most illegal drugs

In January 2015, it was announced that as many as 1 million Californians could be eligible to change past felony convictions on their records under Proposition 47.

Who supported the measure?

The initiative was pushed by George Gascón, San Francisco district attorney, and William Lansdowne, former San Diego police chief. Supporters referred to it as The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.

Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020)

On November 3, 2020, Californians will vote on the Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative, which was designed to make changes to Proposition 47, as well as AB 109 (2011) and Proposition 57 (2016). According to Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-9), the goal of the initiative is to "[reform] the unintended consequences of reforms to better protect the public." Former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) disagreed with Cooper's assessment, saying the initiative was the "latest scare tactic on criminal justice reform."

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit based in San Francisco, described AB 109 and Propositions 47 and 57 as successful sentencing reforms that reduced overcrowding in state prisons. Andrew Do, chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, described the measures as "California's dangerous trifecta."

Regarding Proposition 47, the ballot initiative would make specific types of theft and fraud crimes, including firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card, chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies, rather than misdemeanors. The ballot initiative would also establish two additional types of crimes in state code-serial crime and organized retail crime-and charge them as wobblers (crimes chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies).

The ballot initiative would also require persons convicted of certain misdemeanors that were classified as wobblers or felonies before 2014, such shoplifting, grand theft, and drug possession, along with several other crimes, including domestic violence and prostitution with a minor, to submit to collection of DNA samples for state and federal databases.

Election results

California Proposition 47

Result

Votes

Percentage

Yes

4,238,156

59.61%

No

2,871,943

40.39%

Election results via: California Secretary of State

Text of measure

Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Official summary: The long-form summary read:

"

Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.

Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.

Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.

Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.

Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims.

"

(Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its Director of Finance.)

"

Net state criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These savings would be spent on school truancy and dropout prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.

Net county criminal justice system savings that could reach several hundred million dollars annually.

"

The organization that led the campaign in support of the initiative was Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools.

Supporters

Former officials

Municipalities

Organizations

Individuals

Arguments in favor

Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools provided a summary of the initiative, including following excerpt:

"

Stops wasting prison space on low-level nonviolent crimes: Changes the lowest level nonviolent drug possession and petty theft crimes from felonies to simple misdemeanors. It authorizes resentencing for anyone who is incarcerated for these offenses and poses no threat to public safety. These changes apply to juveniles as well as adults.

"

Newt Gingrich (R), Speaker of the U.S. House from 1995 to 1999, and B. Wayne Hughes Jr., a businessman and early supporter of Proposition 47, said similar policies have been implemented in "red states," like Texas and South Carolina, and have "shown how reducing prison populations can also reduce cost and crime." The following is an excerpt from an editorial they co-wrote:

Bishop Jaime Soto, president of the California Catholic Conference of Bishops and Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, said Proposition 47 received a unanimous endorsement from the state's Catholic bishops. The state's 10 million Catholics distributed a statement explaining the endorsement. The following is an excerpt from the statement:

The , in the union's official endorsement of Proposition 47, stated:

Total campaign cash
as of December 31, 2014

Support:

$10,976,491

Opposition:

$551,800

Four ballot measure campaign committees were registered in support of the initiative as of December 31, 2014:

The following were the donors who had contributed $100,000 or more to the campaign supporting the initiative as of December 31, 2014:

Opposition

The campaign against the proposition was led by Californians Against Proposition 47.

Organizations

Arguments against

"

Prop. 47 would do two things. First, it would reclassify a wide range of crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor. This would mean shorter prison sentences for serious crimes like stealing firearms, identity theft and possessing dangerous narcotics such as cocaine and date rape drugs.

"

"

Prop 47 is a lengthy piece of legislation with many hidden provisions. Some of the not-so-obvious things Prop 47 will do are:

Change crimes like purse and phone snatching -- where thieves grab expensive property right off your body -- into petty theft, the same as stealing a candy bar.

Make possession of "date rape" drugs a misdemeanor.

Prevent many commercial burglars from being charged with a felony as long as they strike during work hours -- when it's most dangerous for employees.

Make stealing a handgun -- which is often done to commit violent crimes -- a misdemeanor in almost all cases.

Reduce sentences for muggers, burglars, cocaine and heroin dealers, and other dangerous criminals who pled guilty to lesser offenses like grand theft or possession.

Make receiving property obtained through extortion a misdemeanor (up to $950).

Make stealing horses and other animals a misdemeanor in many cases.

"

Prop 47 undermines laws against sex-crimes. Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.

Prop 47 will burden our criminal justice system. This measure will overcrowd jails with dangerous felons who should be in state prison and jam California's courts with hearings to provide "Get Out of Prison Free" cards.

One ballot measure campaign committee was registered in opposition to the initiative as of December 31, 2014:

The following were the donors who had contributed $10,000 or more to the campaign opposing the initiative as of December 31, 2014:

Peace Officers Research Association of California Political Issues Committee

$286,000

Aladdin Bail Bonds

$49,900

California Association of Highway Patrolmen PAC

$25,000

California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police Issues Committee

$25,000

Lexington National Insurance Corp.

$25,000

California Narcotics Officers Association

$13,500

Artichoke Joe's Casino

$10,000

Media editorial positions

Marin Independent Journal: "The goals of Proposition 47 are to reduce prison population, reduce taxpayer costs and treat offenders in a more effective way. It directs expected savings to schools and safe-neighborhood programs. The right way make [sic] sure that punishments fit the crimes is to give judges greater leeway to dole out effective sentences for crimes. That's why we reluctantly endorse Proposition 47."

Opposition

California Proposition 47 (2014)

Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

William Lansdowne and George Gascon submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 19, 2013.

A title and summary was issued by California's attorney general's office on February 14, 2014.

504,760 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.

Supporters had until July 14, 2014, to collect the required signatures. Filing sufficient signatures by that date would not have allowed the initiative to compete on the November 4, 2014, ballot. The secretary of state's suggested signature filing deadline for the November 4, 2014, ballot was April 18, 2014.

On May 5 and May 6, supporters turned in an estimated 800,000 signatures.

On June 26, 2014, the initiative was certified for the November 4, 2014, ballot and 587,806 signatures were reported as valid.

Cost of signature collection

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot came to $1,847,882. That is equivalent to $3.66 per signature. The signature vendor was PCI Consultants, Inc.

Similar measures

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 47 reduced penalties. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

External links

Basic information

Opposition

Additional reading

Did you know?

Did you know that Ballotpedia is a nonprofit organization? Yep. We've been able to publish over a quarter million articles that are read by millions of people every month solely because of the generosity of our supporters. It costs us approximately $68 per year to write and maintain each of our encyclopedic articles-like the one you just read.

Will you chip in just $68 to ensure Ballotpedia remains a free, neutral resource for millions of Americans seeking trustworthy political information?

Yes, I want to support Ballotpedia with my donation of $68!

P.S. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, your donations to Ballotpedia are fully tax-deductible to the extent of the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014) - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Proposition 47, the Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative, was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The measure was approved. The initiative reduced the classification of most nonviolent property and drug crimes-including theft and fraud for amounts up to $950-from a felony to a misdemeanor.

# data[].attributes.body
Articles Sources 1 & 2

# data[].attributes.body
source 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jason Redmond / REUTERS

Southern hospitality is famous, but the accommodations at Anderson County Jail will no longer be gratis. Inmates at this correctional institution northwest of Knoxville, Tenn., will soon have to pay fed-up taxpayers $9.15 for each pair of pants issued during their stay, $6.26 for each blanket and $1.15 for each towel. They'll even have to shell out 29¢ for toilet paper.

A county of about 75,000 people, Anderson, like many municipalities across the country, has seen the cost of housing inmates rise in the past few years. And like many states, cities and counties facing tight budget constraints, Anderson has turned to the inmates themselves to defray some of those costs.

"Our taxpayers pay $62 a day to house one inmate," says Jay Yeager, the Anderson County law director who proposed the program. "Our inmate care, medical care, housing care, all those budgetary codes have escalated over the past several years, and it's an unreasonable burden on our taxpayers. What we're trying to do is shift the burden off the taxpayers' back, to the inmates."

( PHOTOS: A Photographer's Journey From Behind Bars to Behind the Lens)

Anderson County is only the latest in a long line of cash-strapped municipalities to levy fees to help fund their criminal-justice systems. The practice is common in California, Texas, New York and Illinois. Since 1996, Florida has added 20 fees. And in 2010, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School surveyed the 15 states with the highest prison populations, which accounted for nearly 70% of all state prisoners in the country, and found myriad fees assessed both during and after prison stays: administrative fees, supervision and transportation fees, even a $60 fee in Pennsylvania just to enter the parole program.

Policies charging inmates are popular with taxpayers, but legal experts are skeptical about whether they close budget gaps. "It may be more symbolic than anything else," Dwight Aarons, a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law, says of Anderson County's new policy. "I really don't know how people in jail are supposed to make enough money to be able pay for those items."

Yeager said he isn't sure how much money the new fees will bring to the county. In May, when county officials began discussing a budget for the new fiscal year, spending requests exceeded expected revenue by $4 million. Over three months in the following quarter, Yeager is requesting that the jail do an analysis of how much money the county can recoup with the new fees. "We're hoping to recover some money, but honestly, the likelihood of getting a high-percentage reimbursement is small," he says.

Legal experts point out that prison fees don't yield much revenue because the majority of prisoners in the U.S. are poor. Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows nearly two-thirds of state-prison inmates don't have a high school diploma. According to some studies, nearly a quarter of convicts expect to go to homeless shelters after prison, and more than half are still unemployed a year after their release.

Prison fees can also create another obstacle for inmates after they're released: intractable debt. In Florida, the state relied on private collection agencies that added surcharges as high as 40%; in California, failure to pay a fee resulted in an extra $300 charge. And in some cases these fees can land convicts back in prison, costing taxpayers even more.

( MORE: Incarceration Nation)

Judges in several states have sent former inmates back to prison for failure to appear at court hearings related to their debt, a practice critics say is akin to modern-day debtor's prison. A 2012 report by the Brennan Center found that in 2009, Mecklenburg County, N.C., sent 246 people back to prison because they fell behind on their debts. The county was able to collect $33,476, but the incarcerations cost nearly $40,000, leaving taxpayers in the red. Missouri allows people to voluntarily go back behind bars to "pay off" debts. Circuit judges have the power, at the defendant's request, to commute fines and fees in return for more jail time, where the inmate is credited $10 per day.

"This is an unfair burden on the poor, and what happens in these situations oftentimes is that the relatives of the inmates end up shouldering the financial burden," says Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a lawyer at the Brennan Center.

According to Yeager, that won't happen in Anderson County. "It's not a situation where their parole or probation can be revoked. Only the people that are able to pay or are gainfully employed will be able to pay these fees," he says. "We don't want to run our operation like a pauper's prison and keep them in jail simply on court costs. That doesn't work."

States and municipalities across the country are finding out a lot about what doesn't work in the prison system. America's prison population - the U.S. has about 2.2 million prisoners, more than any other country in the world - has re-entered the national conversation on both sides of the political spectrum. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the Justice Department to take steps aimed at reducing the prison population by no longer charging nonviolent offenders with serious crimes leading to long prison sentences.

( PHOTOS: On the Inside: Venezuela's Most Dangerous Prison)

A few days later, Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli told the Washington Post, "There is an expectation that the generic Republican position is tough on crime. But even that has budget limits, particularly on the prison side."

Data on debt-related sentences are scarce, but experts point out that debt hearings clog up an already stretched legal system. In one survey of a New Orleans court, more than 6% of cases involved debt-collection issues; of those, nearly a quarter had an arrest warrant issued because of a failure to appear.

"There's been a left-right consensus that nonviolent offenders don't really need to be in prison; we can find less costly ways of dealing with that," says Rebekah Diller, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, who co-authored the Brennan Center study. "This should be part of that discussion if we have people filling jail beds because they couldn't pay some sort of fee."

As Anderson County studies the impact of jail fees on the county's finances, Yeager is planning to propose a way to reduce recidivism. Next month, the county commission will vote on a plan to convert part of the jail into a workhouse. Inmates serving time for misdemeanors who have jobs will be able to leave to work their shifts, then return to the prison each day.

"One of the major contributors to a high recidivism rate is loss of a job, so if an inmate is serving time on a misdemeanor sentence and they have a job, we want them to keep their job," Yeager says. But nothing comes free for the prisoners of Anderson County. If the proposal passes, they'll be charged the daily fee, plus extra for being escorted to and from their jobs.

VIDEO: Inmate Jumps Counter in Daring Jailbreak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome to Prison. Will You Be Paying Cash or Credit? | TIME.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Southern hospitality is famous, but the accommodations at Anderson County Jail will no longer be gratis. Inmates at this correctional institution northwest of Knoxville, Tenn., will soon have to pay fed-up taxpayers $9.15 for each pair of pants issued during their stay, $6.

# data[].attributes.body
source 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should inmates receive a free college education?

With the crime rate steadily increasing in the United States, law makers are forced to put more and more citizens behind bars. FBI data from last fall show violent crimes, including murders and robberies, rose by 3.7% nationwide during the first six months of 2006.

Those findings came on top of a 2.2% crime hike in 2005 - the first increase since 2001. Although their crimes vary, each inmate is in prison for one main purpose; they have committed a felony and prison is where they can go as punishment.

Although it is in fact "prison," the treatment they receive is nothing short of easy. With free meals, free exercise equipment, free religious services, free counseling, and free college education, prison seems ideal.

Some argue that privileges offered in county prisons are too abundant and defeat the purpose of serving one's actual sentence, while members of the opposite belief say that these offerings are needed to keep the inmates sane.

"Education does change minds, teaches people how to think better, [and] how to find alternatives to the way they used to do things," said Stephen Steurer, executive director of the Correctional Education Association.

The main argument erupting in the minds of American citizens today, however, is: should inmates receive a free college education? The opinion can go either way.

For some, they feel free college education is a privilege taken way too lightly by the inmates who are receiving it. Hard-working American citizens fight everyday to be their best, striving to succeed as far as they can. Why is it fair that inmates, citizens who have committed crimes, are able to receive a college education for free?

College is not cheap, and hard-working Americans know this. The average tuition at four-year public colleges rose 6.5 percent, or $429, to $7,020 this fall, according to the College Board's annual "Trends in College Pricing" report. At private colleges, the average list price for a year of coursework rose 4.4 percent to $26,273.

According to recently released reports from the College Board, most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $172 to $1,096 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college. One can't simply go to college because they want to; they must earn their admission.

Inmates who have caused their families and communities harm are being given an education that they most likely take for granted. If one is in prison, chances that they are aiming to better their education while serving their time are slim.

If a murderer is convicted, does society really believe that their first thought when they arrive at their vacant jail cell will be "when does school start?" No. Counseling and help is what they really need.

If somebody is creating chaos and destruction, an education should not be their first priority to making things "better." Those who have chosen to commit a crime have chosen to limit their opportunities and freedoms.

Providing inmates with a college education also means that tax payer money is going to said programs. Why should innocent, law-abiding citizens be forced to pay for those who have done wrong?

The professors and instructors employed at prisons are taking time out of their schedules to provide for those who have done wrong. These people are taking a risk and could be caught in serious danger if the "students" are not watched carefully.

The information and knowledge that they gain could also be used negatively. If one is in prison because of a crime that involved deep knowledge and planning, providing them with an education may only better their success rate if they choose to again commit a crime.

Another topic of concern; why should death row inmates or felons who have received a life sentence be given free education? Death row inmates can take some classes, although they are not allowed to leave their cells.

A teacher delivers instruction to the prisoner through the bars.They will not be able to use the knowledge they gain because they will always be in jail. So what's the point?

Many continue to ask; should repeat offenders still receive a free college education? Obviously they have been given a second chance to better their lives and make things right again, but they still continue to make mistakes. Why do these felons deserve this right, when law-abiding citizens still must pay the fee for higher education?

From the other end of the spectrum, however, many will argue that education in prison is what inmates need to keep them sane and alive. Providing them with an education will offer the knowledge that they can have a successful life after prison.

Some believe that what inmates are taught in jail should be based on a personal level and that the curriculum should focus on individual effort.

On March 14, 2006, a group of educators began their work at a local prison in Worcester, Mass. The experience they gained not only gave them a great sense of self accomplishment, but allowed them to learn along with their students.

They know how to translate educere, which in this context means "enlightenment" or "to enlighten," into a meaningful practice and thus transform education into practical knowledge, the kind that leads not only to a better job but also to a more meaningful and creative life.

"It's rejuvenating," said Antonio Rivera, 23, of the Cheshire Correctional Institution, who is less than halfway through a 12-year sentence for drug dealing.

Another example of schooling in prisons occurs in Hagerstown, Maryland. The prisoners, who are held at the Maryland Correctional Training Center, a medium-security facility, recently earned their Master of Theology Studies degrees through the Prison-to-Pulpit program from Covenant Theological Seminary of Tallahassee, FL, a training school that has a Maryland branch.

Personally, I believe inmates should not receive free college education while incarcerated. They have obviously committed a crime or a series of crimes, and need to be punished for their actions.

While some argue that serving "hard time" is enough punishment, I believe that, as a prisoner, they have lost every right as a free man.

If the education they were receiving was not at a collegiate level and had volunteers providing the material, it would be different. But for them to receive free college education is ridiculous.

Students work hard to gain a college education, and it is not fair that one receives it for free, especially if they do not truly want it or appreciate it. People today argue about the temptations that society must face and overcome. In these hard times, it is tough to be a well-rounded individual.

Obviously, there is no excuse for committing a crime, but there has to be somebody to blame. I truly do not understand why these criminals are given the education that hard-working men and women must compete for.

The issue of inmates receiving free college education is a touchy subject that has obviously stirred controversy. American citizens are free to believe what they feel and, as a strong-minded country, it would be difficult to change their opinions

Whether you are for or against inmates receiving free college education while incarcerated, one is entitled to their own opinion. In the words of Voltaire: "I may not agree with the words you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prison inmates shouldn't receive free college education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Kara Henson Round Table Editor-in-Chief Should inmates receive a free college education? With the crime rate steadily increasing in the United States, law makers are forced to put more and more citizens behind bars. FBI data from last fall show violent crimes, including murders and robberies, rose by 3.7% nationwide during the first six...

# data[].attributes.body
Source 3