Prop 36 Critic: Voters Misled on California Crime Law

Prop 36: A Solution to a Non-Existent Problem

• 💡 Prop 36 passed in November, increasing penalties for theft and mandating treatment for repeat drug offenses, despite new DOJ data showing property crime was at historic lows prior to its passage.
• 🎯 Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, argues that Prop 36 was a solution for a problem that didn't exist.
• ⚠️ While acknowledging public concern over smash-and-grab incidents and feelings of unsafety, Hollins states Prop 36 was not the correct solution.

Voter Misconceptions and False Promises

• 🧠 Hollins suggests voters were misled into believing Prop 36 was a solution, partly due to saturation of video footage of crimes and stories of property crime.
• 🎭 The proposition was presented as an opportunity for treatment, a false promise that did not include a commitment to funding treatment.
• 📉 Many voters did not read the fine print, failing to understand the lack of guaranteed funding for core issues.

Funding and Accountability for Prop 36

• ⚖️ Governor Nuome signed a budget without funding Prop 36, placing the responsibility on counties and local governments.
• 💸 Proponents of Prop 36 are called to take responsibility for selling another false promise.
• 📉 The passage of Prop 36 jeopardizes funds previously leveraged through Proposition 47, which supported treatment, violence prevention, and re-entry programs.
• ⚠️ There is a need to protect these vital programs, especially amidst budget shortages and funding cuts to services.