Readers React: A prosecutor doesn’t like Prop. 47 -- big surprise

To the editor: One must question the motive behind Marc Debbaudt’s assault on Proposition 47 and the prosecutor’s allegation that voters were “sold a bill of goods” before passing the landmark sentencing reform law last November. (“California’s Prop. 47 revolution: Voters were sold a bill of goods,” Op-Ed, Oct. 26)

The law is less than a year old, so it is more than a little irresponsible to call it a failure and blame a “slickly marketed” campaign strategy.

In truth, Proposition 47 simply bears out what the public has suspected for years: Lengthy prison terms are not always the answer to society’s ills. Let’s not jump to hasty conclusions about Proposition 47 without first conducting the proper research.

So why the irresistible impulse to undermine and destroy the new measure without first giving it a chance to succeed? Could it be that law enforcement budgets are tied to felony arrests, which are traditionally far more costly to prosecute than misdemeanors?

Mike Cavalluzzi, Los Angeles

The writer is a criminal defense attorney.

..

To the editor: Debbaudt writes that since the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, property crime rates in the city of Los Angeles are up 10.9% and violent crime rates are up 20.6%.

Readers should take these statistics with a heaping serving of salt.

As The Times reported this month, the Los Angeles Police Department for years systematically underreported crimes, providing a false picture of crime throughout the city. It’s misleading to discuss year-over-year increases from past crime rates when those rates were artificially low to begin with.

A true understanding of the effects of the Proposition 47 reforms begins with a full examination of the Police Department’s past manipulation of crime reporting.

Charles LaPlante, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook