When Rudy Giuliani assumed the mayoral office in New York City in 1994, he embarked on a mission to drastically reduce crime. Giuliani’s philosophy was simple: address all levels of crime to prevent more serious offenses. As he explained, “Obviously murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes. But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.” This approach, known as the “broken windows” theory, focused on strict law enforcement and increased police presence.
During Giuliani’s tenure, the police force in New York City expanded by 35%, and the prison population grew by 24%, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper. The results were significant: from 1990 to 1999, homicide rates dropped by 73%, burglary by 66%, assault by 40%, robbery by 67%, and vehicle thefts by 73%. The success of this strategy in New York was evident, and it became a model for reducing crime in urban areas.
In stark contrast, California’s approach under Kamala Harris’ tenure as state attorney general (2011-2017) followed a different path. Proposition 47, passed in 2014, aimed to reduce the state’s prison population by reclassifying certain nonviolent property and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. The proposition promised significant budget savings, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, to be redirected towards school truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.
Despite its well-intentioned goals, Proposition 47 has faced criticism for its unintended consequences. A report by the Pacific Research Institute highlighted that the recidivism rates for offenders covered by Proposition 47 have not improved and, in fact, have worsened. Nearly 75% of individuals convicted under Proposition 47 have been re-arrested, a rate similar to before the proposition’s implementation.
The $950 threshold for shoplifting established by Proposition 47 has also come under scrutiny. Critics argue that this threshold has led to an increase in thefts, as offenders exploit the misdemeanor classification to avoid harsher penalties. In San Francisco, for example, the impact of Proposition 47 has been particularly pronounced, with reports indicating a rise in thefts and other property crimes.
Despite these challenges, Proposition 47’s supporters continue to defend it, emphasizing the need for criminal justice reform and the benefits of reducing the state’s prison population. However, the debate over the proposition’s effectiveness and its impact on public safety remains contentious.
As the nation prepares for the upcoming election, voters will not only decide on the next president but also on the fate of Proposition 47 in California. The proposition’s legacy and its connection to Kamala Harris, who was responsible for writing its title and summary, will undoubtedly play a role in the broader discussion about criminal justice reform and public safety.
