Impact of defelonizing drug possession on recidivism

Abstract

sought to scale back punishment for selected drug and property offenses, making them misdemeanors rather than felonies. Although others have examined the impacts of Proposition 47 on crime rates, here we examine the impacts on a range of recidivism outcomes specifically for individuals convicted for drug possession offenses. We focus on the defelonization of drug possession because nationally evidence suggests that public and policy maker sympathy for reducing incarceration use is greatest for nonviolent drug offenders.Thus, the greatest relevance of Proposition 47 to the nation lies in its strategy of defelonizing drug possession. We draw on an ongoing data collection effort on criminal justice populations in 12 California counties and link these data to rearrest and reconviction data from county and state-level sources. We find people who received drug possession convictions after Prop 47 had lower overall rearrest and reconviction rates than people with comparable convictions and criminal histories released prior to the proposition. Overall reductions in recidivism rates for Prop 47 drug offenders were driven by reductions in rearrest and reconviction for drug possession offenses. These findings are robust to a variety of specifications and sensitivity analyses. When we complicate the narrative of declines in nonviolent recidivism, however, we find evidence of a 2.8-percentage-point increase in rearrest for crimes against Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19:591-616. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

Do Cops Still Care? A Phenomenological Exploration of Narcotics (De)Criminalization and Officer Discretion in Southern California

“…With the penalty reduction for the specified offenses, law enforcement officers seemed to experience a proportional reduction in the motivation to arrest offenders (Bird, Nguyen, & Grattet, 2020;Grattet et al, 2017). These results may seem to align with the voters' wishes since they passed Proposition 47 with a 60% vote (Austin, 2016).…”

“…Those crimes that California law previously listed as felonies now became reclassified as misdemeanors. Since the associated penalties and enforcement options gave law enforcement officers further discretion, behaviors were apt to change as well (Bird, Nguyen, & Grattet, 2020). Knowing how law enforcement officers respond to similar amendments in the law is crucial to understanding police officer decision processes.…”

“…Others only require the officer to talk to the parties involved and perhaps issue a warning to adjudicate the matter. When California legislators enacted Proposition 47, the Safer Neighborhoods and Schools Act, in 2014, the law removed many enforcement tools for narcotics and theft crimes (Bird, Nguyen, & Grattet, 2020;Grattet et al, 2017). Defelonization of narcotics and theft crimes introduced discretion into situations that previously mandated arrests.…”

Gender in the Courtroom Workgroup: Understanding the Relationship Between the Composition of Workgroups and the Gender Gap in Punishment

“…Reducing the maximum allowable punishment could help reduce gender disparities. Prior policy-evaluation studies show how scaling back charging and punishment codes, even when implemented in a race-neutral manner, can reduce the magnitude of racial disparities in incarceration without significantly increasing recidivism (Bird et al, 2020; Lofstrom et al, 2020; MacDonald & Raphael, 2020). Logically, we would expect a similar narrowing of the gender gap in punishment in response to efforts to scale back severity by censoring the top end of possible punishment.…”

Capturing Incarceration: A phenomenological study of Recidivism in Convicted Women

“…The results are persistent with the previous study of Hasisi, Carmel, and Wolfowicz (2020) who showed that social factors for example labeling and negligence from others increase recidivism. Moreover, helplessness (Bird, Nguyen, & Grattet, 2020), bad relationship with neighbors, (Akporaro, 2019), labeling (Barrick et.al, 2014), grouping (Onifade et. al, 2008), patriarchy (Lutzee & Bell, 2005), and negligence from authorities (Walters et.al, 2011) lead a person towards recidivism.…”