Crime in the Golden State

In June 2022, frustrated with rising crime rates in San Francisco — between 2020 and 2022, property crime increased by 23 percent and violent crime increased by 10 percent — San Francisco county voters recalled District Attorney (DA) Chesa Boudin. This was a harbinger of the increasing salience of crime in California politics.

Other progressive district attorneys like Pamela Price and George Gascón of Alameda and Los Angeles county, respectively, also faced recall attempts in the following months. Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao is facing a recall effort as well, largely sparked by public safety concerns. While the Price and Thao recalls are still ongoing, the recall of Gascón failed to meet the signature threshold.

To be clear, the data shows that there is a crime uptick in California. While broader, national talking points about a crime wave are largely unfounded (FBI statistics have shown most types of crime steadily decreasing in the past few years), it would be disingenuous to assume that these trends hold in California. In fact, in California, both violent and property crimes rose in 2022. While still low compared to the rates of the 70s and 80s, this is still a concerning trend. Many attribute this increase in crime to lax sentencing rules and other similar reforms enacted over the past few decades. Almost four years after George Floyd’s murder and the calls for reform, California Democrats, in response to soft-on-crime accusations, have shifted to the right on public safety policy. While this shift may be politically appealing from a policy perspective, it will result in a regression to the punitive measures of the past that do not actually reduce crime.

One common argument is that Proposition 47 contributed to this rise in crime. Passed in 2014, this ballot measure reclassified certain non-violent property crimes of under $950 in damages as misdemeanors, essentially making prison sentences shorter and fines smaller. This was meant to reduce overcrowding in prisons and rectify an overreliance on the carceral system that disproportionately affects communities of color. Some claim that the change in sentencing removes deterrents to crime and, as such, is responsible for the crime rates rising.

California legislators, in attempts to reduce crime, have introduced measures to roll back or even repeal Prop 47. For example, the chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee introduced legislation to amend Prop 47, with the intent to harshen punishments for repeat offenders. Past sessions have also seen many attempts to lower the monetary threshold for a crime to be a felony, or even repeal the measure altogether.

However, Prop 47 is not to blame for the rise in crime. First, the timing doesn’t work out. It was passed in November 2014, a whole six years before the crime spike that began in 2020, which saw both violent and property crimes increase. If Prop 47 was really the cause of the crime spike, we would have seen an increase much sooner. Furthermore, other states — with less crime — have higher thresholds. Take Texas: it has a much higher threshold at $2,500. But it actually has a lower property crime rate than California. Or, take New Mexico: it has a lower threshold than California ($500) but a higher property crime rate. We can pull many more examples from the data, indicating that lowering California’s felony threshold will likely not result in reduced crime.

Another factor that is commonly attributed with the increase in crime is laxer prosecution. This idea drives the numerous recall attempts against progressive DAs. The Chesa Boudin Recall campaigners, for example, cite his refusal to prosecute lower-level drug and property crimes as the impetus for the recall effort. The Price and Gascón recalls were started for similar reasons.

However, harsher punishments for crime do not necessarily result in less crime. The majority of studies done on this subject do not support the idea that more severe punishments deter crime. One study, for example, found that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment — the harshest of sentences — is not significantly different than in states without. And in states that did implement the death penalty, the rate of homicide between the years before and after the change did not significantly change.

Despite its ineffectiveness, California policymakers remain committed to these measures. Mayors London Breed and Matt Mahan of San Francisco and San Jose endorsed a ballot initiative to amend Prop 47 to increase penalties for theft and drug dealing. Said Breed: “When there are no real consequences for crimes that are committed in this city, that’s a real problem.”

Lawmakers have introduced bills increasing penalties for repeat offenders. A new retail theft committee assembled by the Assembly Speaker has also hinted at changes to Prop 47, and introduced the California Retail Theft Reduction Act, which creates a new crime for professional retail theft, requires retails to report “theft data,” and allows police officers to make arrests based on sworn statements or video evidence, among other provisions.

Not all of these policies will be ineffective. While the Prop 47 amendment and increased penalties are certainly misguided, and the laxer arrest justifications for police officers will likely have problematic racial implications, other policies listed may prove more helpful. However, this narrow focus on punishment and enforcement can prevent good policies from being considered.

There remains a considerable lack of action to address crime outside of the usual methods. However, this is what is necessary to truly reduce the rates of crime. Studies have demonstrated that other approaches to crime reduction that take a more holistic view of the causes of crime can work better.

One study of an Argentinian poverty alleviation program, for example, found that cash transfers worked to reduce both property crime and aggravated assault. As a result of a deepening economic crisis, the Argentinian government started the UHHP program, in which the government would send money to households to supplement income. By comparing spending levels and crime across 23 provinces, researchers found that a 10 percent increase in relief spending was associated with a 2.7 percent decrease in property crime. Another study in Brazil similarly found that conditional cash transfers were associated with reductions in property crime rates.

Working to address the root causes of crime like lack of means and opportunity can reduce crime. While these policies may be a tougher political sell, it can be done. Take Brandon Johnson, who was elected mayor of Chicago in 2023. One of the most salient issues in that election was crime, and Johnson, as a progressive, was attacked for being soft on crime. But instead of running to the right and promising things like more policing, he called for more violence intervention programs and community safety organizations. While programs like these take a while to get off the ground, evidence from other localities demonstrates their potential.

One example comes from Advance Peace, a community violence intervention program that seeks to identify at-risk individuals and provide them with opportunities to lead them on another path. Advance Peace’s operations in Woodland were able to significantly reduce the number of shootings. In 2021, prior to the introduction of Advance Peace, there were 42 shootings in 6 months. By 2022, after the introduction of Advance Peace, there were only 10 shootings the entire year.

Programs like these can prove remarkably effective and, more importantly to politicians, politically viable. While it may be a more difficult sell to the voters, implementing more holistic crime policies and programs like these, instead of focusing solely on punishment and enforcement, will ultimately be better for the state.