LA DA Candidates Q&A Part One: Prop. 47 and the Concept of the Misdemeanor

As the Globe has done for a number of other important political races in the past, we asked each of the candidates for Los Angeles District Attorney if they wished to take part in a question and answer series on the major issues facing the office.

Five of the candidates are participating – thank you! – while incumbent George Gascon and five others declined or did not respond.

We asked ten questions and will be printing – verbatim – the responses over the coming five days, two questions per article.

The first question couplet involves Prop 47 and misdemeanors. The passage of 47 and the failure to prosecute misdemeanors – often called “quality of life” crimes – have played significant roles in creating the degraded state of public safety in California’s cities.  Smash and grab robberies and rampant shoplifting and increased street drug use and violence are just two of the consequences of these policies.

Let’s get to the questions!

Questions about proposition 47 have continued to roil law enforcement circles and the public.  Do you believe there is a direct relationship between its passage and the increase in property crime?  Also, do you believe there is a direct relationship between its passage and increased drug abuse due to its removal of potential penalties?  Would you support its repeal and/or amendment?

NATHAN HOCHMAN

I would support efforts to significantly modify Proposition 47. I think the public has become more aware of what happens to safety and security when you remove felony prosecutions for those who use certain dangerous and highly addictive drugs (like fentanyl) and increase the misdemeanor theft limit to $950.

While some aspects of Proposition 47 may make sense, like changing possession of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor, particularly after marijuana’s legalization, the rest of Proposition 47 has in no way lived up to its title as the “Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.” On the drug side, by effectively decriminalizing not just the possession of marijuana but the possession of highly addictive/dangerous drugs like fentanyl, heroin, ecstasy, and methamphetamine, Proposition 47 gutted the very successful drug courts since drug addicts no longer faced state prison for these crimes and have unleashed a tsunami of drug-motivated crimes by those needing to steal to feed their drug addictions.  When coupled with the raising of the felony theft threshold to $950 and DA Gascon’s prohibition or reluctance to prosecute juvenile/adult misdemeanor theft cases, we have seen an explosion of these theft crimes. To fix Proposition 47, we need to create, at a minimum, a serial misdemeanor/felony statute that makes clear that thefts under $950 can be aggregated over a certain time frame (180 days or a year), which then become felonies. We also need to revisit re-instituting misdemeanor/felony wobblers for certain drug crimes like the possession of highly dangerous and addictive drugs.

DEBRA ARCHULETA

There is undoubtedly a direct relationship between Prop. 47 and property crime because the current DA refuses to enforce the law as it is written. What started out as a well-intentioned way to reduce non-violent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, the lack of any enforcement of these misdemeanors has led to an unfettered increase in serious thefts committed by repeat offenders without consequences. Current statistics show a startling increase in these types of property crimes despite protestations to the contrary. Further, the decriminalization of the personal use of drugs has discouraged individuals with drug addiction from receiving the court-mandated treatment they so desperately need to get back on the road to recovery.

DANIEL KAPELOVITZ

Property crime has risen because fearmongers have misled the public into believing that nothing happens to people who commit those crimes.  Imagine if the fearmongers convinced everyone that the DA will not prosecute anyone who robs a bank.  Bank robberies would obviously increase.

Gascón is prosecuting theft crimes.  And they are filed as felonies because stealing, say, even one designer bag meets the $950 threshold.

The “rational criminal” who goes into a store and steals $949 worth of goods is a myth.  One candidate recently claimed she saw videos of people going into stores with calculators to make sure they can’t be charged with a felony. I will donate $10,000 to her campaign if she can produce one such legitimate video.

As for mere drug possession, it should be decriminalized.  People who are addicted to drugs need treatment — not punishment, and especially not up to three years in prison.

MARIA RAMIREZ

I support the amendment of Prop 47 to better address the current issues with public safety that the

county is experiencing. What Prop 47 has done, in conjunction with the current DA policies and the new zero bail system, is take away our ability to effectively prosecute repeat offenders. As we have seen in the recent smash and grab thefts, many of those involved are repeat offenders who are not being held accountable for their actions. We must restore our ability to prosecute these incidents as felonies after the offender commits two or three petty thefts. Our legislation must adjust to the increase in crime whatever the reason for it. I also believe that there is some correlation between the increase in drug abuse and Prop 47 in that it hindered our ability to get drug abusers into treatment as part of their case resolution. Again, no accountability leads to an increase in the conduct.

DAVID MILTON

I believe there is a direct link between its passage and increase in property crime. Since its passage, current DA George Gascon has used one of its provisions to undercharge certain criminal conduct such as “Smash & Grab” theft events as misdemeanors that result immediate release of perpetrators who should be charged with burglary and robbery if force or fear is used. Arguably there is a correlation because stolen merchandise likely is sold on the streets which, in-turn, allows for drug purchases.

And the second question:

While the term “misdemeanor” makes them sound minor, misdemeanor crimes clearly have a more direct negative impact on the lives of typical residents than far rarer high-profile crimes.  Would you aggressively prosecute misdemeanors and/or “quality of life” crimes if you are elected District Attorney?

NATHAN HOCHMAN

Yes. Unlike our current DA, I would not play politics by selecting which crimes I would or would not prosecute. A crime is a crime, and I am obligated by law to enforce the law. I believe in the Broken Windows proposition that a spiral of lawlessness starts with the failure to prosecute small crimes (theft under $950) which then can quickly grow to bigger crimes (smash-and-grab robberies, home robberies, armed robberies). As DA, I would reverse the spiral of lawlessness to become a spiral of lawfulness by going after these smaller “quality of life” crimes.

DEBRA ARCHULETA

I will absolutely prosecute “quality of life” crimes when they impact everyone in the community. When we allow crimes like vandalism and public defecation to persist in our neighborhoods and business districts, everyone in the area suffers. I have spoken with hundreds of Angelenos who agree that the issue of crime, along with homelessness, is a priority for them. Many feel that our leaders are not taking responsibility for the safety and well-being of our communities and their residents.

DANIEL KAPELOVITZ

Being charged with a misdemeanor can be quite serious. Facing a year in jail is serious. Losing your job or not being able to find one due to a misdemeanor conviction is serious. Losing your home because you can’t afford bail and are stuck in jail fighting your case is serious. And if you aren’t a U.S. citizen, having certain misdemeanor convictions is extremely serious. Anyone who thinks that being charged with a misdemeanor and facing months in jail is not serious has likely never been to jail.

Except for the most serious misdemeanor offenses, I will not oppose diversion programs where the

result is no conviction on someone’s record. For most first-time misdemeanor offenders, the process of being charged with a crime is enough to deter future offenses. Moreover, I will not prosecute many misdemeanors at all, such as drug possession, gambling, and crimes involving consensual sex between adults.

MARIA RAMIREZ

As District Attorney, our main responsibility is to prosecute the crimes that are affecting our communities. The legislature has determined that misdemeanors are crimes and should be prosecuted. Our cities have demanded accountability for misdemeanors. As District Attorney I will prosecute crimes, including misdemeanors. Where we can be flexible and thoughtful is determining on a case-by-case basis what accountability means for the specific conduct. Accountability does not necessarily mean jail…there are other ways of holding misdemeanants responsible for their conduct, including community service, paying for the damage caused, and complying with services that may have affected their conduct.

DAVID MILTON

Any crime, whether misdemeanor or felony should be filed if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the filing standard that I would enforce as District Attorney.

The following candidates did not participate:  Eric Siddall, John McKinney, Jon Hatami, Jeff Chemerinsky, and Craig Mitchell.

As to George Gascon, he was asked different but related questions:  

As the co-author of Prop 47, do you believe it has had a generally positive impact on public safety?  If you believe a change needs to be made, what would that be?

The blanket non-prosecution of certain misdemeanors has unquestionably led to a feeling of lawlessness amongst the public.  In your second term, will you begin to prosecute more misdemeanors and/or other “quality of life” crimes?

Again, he did not reply to the request.