- [Narrator] Cracking down on California crime, an effort to curb theft and prevent overdoses, Prop 36 would bring major criminal justice changes. Tonight, hear from supporters. - You talk about chunks of money, you're talking about chunks of money off the backs of small business owners who suffer from retail theft. - [Narrator] And critics- - Relying on incarceration will not get us the outcome that we want. - [Narrator] who want you to get out and vote. In a KCA3 Proposition 36 Special. (rousing music) - Thanks so much for joining us tonight, everyone. I'm Brandi Cummings, and I am joined now by community leaders and activists, all of whom will be impacted by either the passage or failure of Prop 36. But first, we wanna begin with an explanation of what this proposition would do. If passed, Prop 36 would make several changes to punishments for theft and drug crimes. It would undo parts of Prop 47. That was the criminal justice reform measure approved by voters 10 years ago that reclassified some property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. As for Prop 36, for misdemeanors, it would turn them into felonies. For example, the theft of items worth $950 or less. It would also lengthen some felony sentences, for example, theft, or damage of property if three or more people committed the crime together. And it would create a new court process for certain crimes. In some cases, it would allow people who possess illegal drugs to be charged with a treatment mandated felony instead of a misdemeanor. So now we want to introduce our round table guests, and we start with Sacramento County Sheriff, Jim Cooper. To his left, we have Cristine Soto DeBerry. She's the Executive Director of Prosecutor's Alliance California. To my right is Sacramento County District Attorney, Thien Ho. To my left, Sacramento Mayor, Darrell Steinberg. Danielle Bettencourt will bring us a business owner perspective as the owner of the Streets of London Pub in West Sacramento. We also welcome Tinisch Hollins. She is the executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you all for being with us tonight. We appreciate it. So district attorney Ho, we'll start with you. When it comes to the prosecution of crimes, why do you support the changes in Prop 36? - As someone who is on the front lines of public safety in the courtroom and the community, I support Proposition 36 because it gives prosecutors the tools, the tools we need to be able to go after and stop retail theft, the ability to get people off the streets, especially those that are suffering from drug addiction, and that happen to be unhoused. And finally, it gives prosecutor the tools to go after the peddlers of poison, the people that are selling fentanyl, and killing our children, killing our brothers, our sisters, and people in the unhoused community. - Sheriff Cooper, I wanna turn to you now. What's your biggest frustration when it comes to these recent crime trends, and how do you think that Prop 36 is going to change that? - It's really the law. Here we are 10 years into Prop 47, and they tried to run dozens of bills through legislature. They never went through. This year you had 20 bills introduced live. It got so bad. That's the reason. It changes it. Prop 47 was voted on by the voters, and has significant change, or meaningful change, has to be voted on by the voters again. That's where the big issue. Our mom and pop businesses are dying out there. They can't afford it. They aren't the big retail big box doors that have insurance can replace it. So that's really who's being impacted by the Prop 47 issue, the 950. That is a big issue with that. And really it's compassionate. If you have a drug addiction, get some help. And best of all, you can get your record expunged. But some folks you have to force into treatment. - You know, I've heard what you all say, and I want, I want to throw this question out for the table. Do you believe that if a person is choosing to steal, if they're committing a crime, do they count up the cost of what it's going to be, what it's going to cost if they're planning to steal, if they are deciding then to commit this crime? Do these increased penalties really reduce crime? - No. So what we know about crime is that most people don't calculate the consequences in advance, particularly the kinds of crime we're talking about, low level thefts, drug use. The National Institute for Justice, which is run by the US Department of Justice, tells us that the most effective way to deter crime is by ensuring that people will be caught. The belief that you'll be caught is the thing that keeps people from crossing the line. It is not the severity of the punishment. And that is what is so misguided about this proposition, is it is going to siphon off resources for the kinds of programs that actually help people get their lives back on track, and push them into a system that's shown to fail over 50% of the time. And we will lose hundreds of millions of dollars that we need in that treatment infrastructure, and we will spend them on building prisons, and over capacity prisons around the state, and we won't have an impact on the decisions people make about whether they go into a store to steal, or whether they use drugs that are dangerous to them. The things that keep people from doing that is the belief that they will get caught. In the state of California, we catch less than 10% of people engaged in theft. We are not deterring people, at the very earliest, least expensive moment that we have available to us, which is to say, "You cannot steal from the store without a consequence." That is appropriate. We should focus on the arrest issue, and not on creating new felonies. - I'm gonna disagree with, respectfully with the idea that the most important part is whether or not somebody thinks that they're gonna get caught. If you think you're gonna get caught, but you know that you're not gonna get punished, then there's no deterrence factor. I have an individual that walked into an immigrant supermarket in South Sacramento, was caught stealing, fought with the clerk, pulled out a weapon, and then escaped. The police, they caught him. And when they caught him he says, "Well, you're just gonna let me go "because I stole less than $950." - [Cristine] But that's a robbery. - But that's a real life example. And what happened was the police told him, "You're facing a robbery." And they were prosecuted for robbery. But the mentality that that individual had was there's no consequence for walking in and stealing. - So you think they are counting the cost. - It wasn't true. - Yeah. Absolutely. - He was prosecuted for a robbery, which is a strike. - [Brandi] Right. - So, may I- Prop 36 to me, is the classic example of a real problem, and a bad and wrong solution. - That's right. - In fact, it's worse than a wrong solution. It's a, it's a promise that cannot possibly be upheld. The idea of this, and we've done this before in California history. We increased criminal penalties significantly in the 90's. What happened, a lot of people who didn't belong in prison ended up in prison. The cost to the taxpayers was in the billions. The federal courts came in and said, "Your prisons and jails are overcrowded. "You need to reduce the size." We've done that by differentiating the sellers and the armed robbers who are prosecuted for felonies, versus people who need treatment. But here's where the false promise is. Using the criminal law to make people take treatment is not a bad idea if you're serious about the treatment. But my experience as a big city mayor, when I see, we have a 41% reduction in unsheltered homelessness in our county, the best in the state. But, there's still too many people who are drug addicted with mental health problems out on our streets. Ask yourself the question, "Why haven't our district attorneys, "why haven't our law enforcement officials, "why haven't the counties "gotten those people into treatment?" And here's the answer. There aren't enough treatment slots. And this will in fact cut back funding for treatment. - I wanna- - It's a false promise. - And I wanna get to- - I would, I would disagree on that, because we had drug court before Prop 47. In Sacramento County it dropped by 70%. So folks were being put into drug court and getting clean. When prop 47 happened, there was no incentive to go to drug court. And that's been the big issue. And we were mandating people to get treatment in drug court. The judges were doing that. They lost that tool. And that's where the big issue. This is a war on addiction, to get rid of that. - I wanna, I wanna, let me, let me get, let me get Tinisch- - We did not loose the tool, we turned it into a misdemeanor- - Let me get Tinisch in on this conversation. - And all of the courts that changed their structure so that people with misdemeanor charges could get treatment through the courts, have succeeded and expanded their numbers. - They're not going. - Every- - They're not going. - single day in courts, people can say, a judge can say- - Let me get Tinisch into this, into this conversation here. So you've been very outspoken about Prop 36. And you've said that we won't see the outcome. Really quickly, why do you think that? And what do you think will happen? - Well, I mean, we've already tried the war on drugs. We've already tried tough on crime, and we saw the rates of incarceration increase in the state, but we did not see a decrease in crime. Incarcerating people did not make our streets safer. What what did make our streets safer was investing in the actual programs that people needed to either prevent them from committing crimes in the first place, or to help them get their lives back on track. Like reentry programs, like violence intervention programs. There is a role for law enforcement if law enforcement's doing their job, if they are making arrests, if prosecutors are prosecuting crimes, people getting convicted. But they can't rely on that alone for public safety. That's why the voters actually passed Prop 47, because they also believe that, that we needed a balance to this. But to put this false promise before voters, and have them believe that by magically passing this law, that all of a sudden your things that are behind glass at Target are all of a sudden going to be available for you to walk up on a shelf and pull away, or that it's going to stop you from committing a crime is a false promise. What will happen, is that we're gonna have many people who are gonna be routed into the criminal justice system, who are gonna come out of that system with more barriers that'll leave us all less safe. - That's ironic, because the voters voted for Prop 47. - They did. - For Prop 46, it's the voters. Let the voters vote for it. That that's a big issue. Why not vote for it? The legislature could have fixed this. They chose not to fix it in 10 years. The reason they did it this year, and bought those bills forward, was because they were afraid of the initiative. They had the chance and they failed to do it. - But they have the tools now because those laws have to passed. - Those tools are insufficient. Look, first of all, when you look at Proposition 47, and I believe in the spirit behind Proposition 47, which is to reduce incarceration. But not at the threat of public safety. And what have we had in the 10 years since then? We have increase in theft. We have increase in homelessness by 50% in the state of California, where everywhere else in the country it's dropping. We have an increase in fentanyl death, an epidemic crisis on it. And what Sheriff Cooper talked about, and I know because I'm in the courtroom, we are in the courtroom every day, drug court success rate dropped by 50% across the state of California since the passage of Prop 47. And in Sacramento it dropped by 70% because there is no accountability. When you are in the throes of addiction, and you are faced with a situation of doing a year and a half in a treatment program, or getting a slap in the wrist in a few days in jail because it's a misdemeanor crime, you're gonna choose the path of least resistance. And that is what happened. And that's why the drug- - [Brandi] We have to take a break. - Yes. Okay. - We're gonna continue this conversation. We do have to take a quick break, but we also wanna get to our business owner because there is another side to this as well. So we will come back after this quick break. To Danielle now. We wanna show some video from December, 2023. KCRA covered a break in at your bar, The Streets of London Pub in West Sacramento. The window was broken along with the cash register. Thieves caused quite a bit of damage. How are you hoping that Prop 36 will prevent things like this from happening again? - It should have been a crime. It should have been. They should have been caught. It should have been a crime. And as a business owner, I was forced to pay for the damages because I was terrified that I was gonna get dropped from my insurance if I made it an insurance claim. So it, that was the first break-in. The second break in happened in the beginning of February, 2024. And they took a saw to the ATM. They were in and out in four minutes. And they happened to know exactly where the box was in the ATM, and they sawed it around it. And now I'm working with the police department to make sure that that doesn't happen again. But why am I being punished? That's what it feels like. - So Danielle, if I may, what happened to you was horrible, but what happened to you was a crime, is a crime. And the question is, have the suspects been apprehended? And if they have, why aren't they being prosecuted as felons? Because what you just described, under any definition of the law, is a felony. And that gets back to this question about the problem that's being stated here is real. But the solution to, we're talking about people, drug addiction, talking about petty thieves, to put them in state prison with, again, the false promise of, "We're going to treat your underlying condition," when 22 counties in this state do not have a single bed, a single residential treatment bed, that that is selling something that I don't think the proponents can deliver. - Let me tell you too- - Which one of those 22 counties though? I mean I know that number's been thrown out there, but nobody's yet identified those 22 counties. And I know what happens is, if you are a smaller county, and there's one around you, those beds are available to them. - And they are smaller counties. I will tell you Sacramento County is not one of them. But to- - But Sacramento County doesn't have enough beds either. - But to that point, a part of this proposition requires treatment mandated felonies, or that's an option. - Yes. - How will that work? And where will those people get the treatment that they need if it's mandated through this law? - So first of all, let's set the stage for that. If a person has two prior convictions for possession of drugs, the third one becomes the possibility of a felony mandated drug offense. And the individual can get treatment. If they accept treatment, they complete that treatment- - And so it's left up to the individual? - Yes. - Okay. - It's left up to the individual. And if they successfully complete it, what happens is not only does that charge get dismissed, it can get expunged as well. But it's that encouragement. And that's why the recovery community support it. I was up at the Delansky Street Center up in San Francisco with Tom Wolf, And 200 people from the recovery center who support Proposition 36. And I remember Jim Cooper and I, Sheriff Cooper and I were walking through San Francisco with Tom Worth, through the Tenderloin, and we saw the destruction of drugs from Fentanyl. And they were advocating at that time for a Proposition 36 model. - But I do have to ask you and Sheriff Cooper this question. So it's not unknown that there are fewer beds, there are less places for these treatment centers to happen. Are we talking about inpatient stays? Are we talking about another portion of the jail? Where specifically will this treatment be held? - It can happen both in-house and outside. So, whether it's in the community, whether it's CalAIM coming into the jail, but we have facilities outside that outpatient treatment is an option as well. - And let's be honest, most of these folks go to county jails. Hardly anyone goes to prison these days. So the county jails, a lot of 'em have space to do that. They're in those programs. We're running reentry programs now, and drug addiction programs that we've run for years. That's the big issue, really getting 'em help. And that's the whole thing, when you're on drugs, I mean it's, it's hard to break addiction. Even on alcohol. That's why it's so important. If you don't want to help yourself, force them in. That goes back to homelessness and conservatorship, and talking about some of those things. Some folks will never get help unless they're forced to get help. - But there is a cost. - Associations may be down, but there's certainly not enough room for the number of people that may be routed into county jails for, under this proposition. And that needs to be understood. The other is that if this proposition passes, it will defund many of the programs that do provide treatment in California. And that is a reality. If we're waiting for, you know, some solution to come, this solution should have come with additional resources. It actually takes resources from the things that'd be relying on. - 800 million. - Yeah. The real problem here, is we're building the wrong kinds of beds. What we're gonna end up doing is building prison beds, when what we need to be building is treatment beds. There are people in our community that are screaming for help. 80% of people that want treatment right now today in the state of California cannot get it. That is our problem. - We need to take a commercial break on that note. And we'll be right back, everyone. Stay with us. Thanks so much for continuing to stay with us, everyone as we continue our conversation around Prop 36. So I wanna throw this question out to everyone at the table. If not this proposition, if not Prop 36, then what? Many people are frustrated about these crimes. We've heard from a business owner. I know you all in your elected capacities have heard from people. So what is it that will and should happen, if not this proposition? And anyone can answer that. - Well, the great news is the California legislature, and Governor Newsome have taken immediate action on this. They passed almost two dozen bills focused on drugs and theft offenses. And they're much more comprehensive than this ballot measure. They talk about the funding that's needed to create more treatment, opening up the Medi-Cal access points so that we can actually provide people the support that they need, and having punishment. So this contemplates both sides of the equation that I think voters are looking for. They want to have that accountability, but they wanna be sure people can get the help that they need and are asking for. We have done that. The government has stepped in and taken that action. We need to let that take effect. Many people that supported this ballot measure have walked away from it because they know that the solutions the governor just put into law are going to help. We need to take that path, and not pass Prop 36, which is gonna rob that funding. - Sheriff Cooper, why don't you jump in. - I would disagree. The legislature passed some laws, but number one, you cannot aggregate theft. You can't combine theft. The state Supreme Court said that in appellate court, but yet a bill passed that way. So several bills were passed that will be challenged by the legislature that will fail. It's a initiative. The voters have to vote for it. You can water it down or dumb it down. You can't increase the penalties. And that's really been the big issue. And here's what's frustrating, Brandi. You can find someone passed out on the sidewalk. They're gonna give you narcan. There's narcans in schools, narcans in jail. That's okay. That's our new normal. That's not okay. Having deodorant and soap locked up- - [Danielle] I have Narcan at home. - That's not okay. - [Danielle] Just in case. - That makes, that's crazy world. And we have to change that. It cannot be commonplace. - So what should happen? What do you want to see happen if this proposition does not pass? - We talked about, number one, you go back to the drawing board. And it's tough, because legislature has failed their job and not done it. 10 years, the only reason we're here right now is 10 years of this. How come no one fixed it before? - Sheriff Cooper, I have to, I have have to say, the legislature is not the only failure. They're not the only ones that are responsible for what we see happening in our communities right now. There are multiple systems that have failed. This issue around fentanyl, it definitely is a criminal drug crisis, but it's also a public health crisis that we have failed to address. Businesses like yours should be protected. Officers need to be able to make arrests, they should have the resources to do that. There's a balance that has to happen. - We don't have- - I'm not protected at all. - Let me get District Attorney Ho. - But what I would say is this, you know, the mayor talked about the cost. What is the cost to the small business owner that has to shut down? What is the cost to the homeless person that dies in the street? What is the cost then to a mother who lost her 15-year-old child from fentanyl poisoning? This isn't about right or left, it's about going forward. It's about common sense. It's about mass treatment, not mass incarceration. And we need to support our small business, and we need to support our community, the unhoused. - I'm trying to create jobs for, I'm in Yolo County. I'm trying to create jobs. And if you're not, if the state is not supporting me, and I, this comes out of pocket, it only affects the customer. I can't afford to keep doing this. There is a small business across the parking lot from me that has been broken into six times, and he is no longer getting his window replaced because it's just gonna get broken into again. - Yeah, that's where we need to intervene with arrests. - I would say- - We need more- - This proposition may very well pass. Beware of disappointing the voters. - Yes. - Mm-hmm. - Because the voters are gonna have high expectations. - Okay. - And the expectation needs to be that you're actually gonna increase the treatment, - Alright, we need- - So that people can get the help they need. - We have to- - But voters have been disappointed for the last 10 years. - We thank you all very much for being with us. Thank you for joining us tonight. Of course, you can get the very latest on all of the propositions on the ballot right now, KCRA.com. Have a good night. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. - Thank you. (rousing music)