Assemblyman Patterson: Public Safety Committee Kills Bill to Fix Prop.47 – Criminals Will Continue Manipulating the System

March 30, 2016 20:11 pm · 49 comments


Legislation supported by law enforcement, crime prevention advocates and small business owners to fix several serious issues with Proposition 47 was killed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee after every Democrat voted against the bill, according to California State Assemblyman Jim Patterson.

The following information is from Assemblyman Patterson:

Since the passage of Proposition 47, crimes like gun theft, shoplifting, drug possession, and receiving stolen property are only prosecuted as misdemeanors no matter how many times the crime is committed as long as the stolen items are less $950.

Prop 47 – Fixing the Unintended Consequences (AB 2369) would have allowed a judge to charge anyone convicted three times of certain crimes within a three year span with a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

“This bill would give the power back to law enforcement, the court and the countless crime victims who are sick and tired of being stolen from time and again,” Assemblyman Patterson said. “The people have been misled. This is not what they voted for but unfortunately in Sacramento, that doesn’t matter.”

The lack of a threat of felony conviction has also eliminated the incentive for criminals to attend drug treatment in exchange for a lesser penalty. This has led to a more than 50 percent drop in drug court participation in Fresno County.

The bill would have been on the November 2016 ballot.

Kai March 30, 2016 at 8:20 PM

Any reason given why they all voted against this?

Mojo March 30, 2016 at 8:27 PM

The Libtards strike again. Pathetic! It’s only going to get worse. Wait until Newsom gets elected. I’m no longer surprised by these Clowns in Sacramento. Ugh!

On Our Own March 30, 2016 at 8:27 PM

What a shock California State Assemblyman Jim Patterson is a Republican.

But then again it’s not like progressive liberal soft on crime democrats are rushing to fix the mess they created after spending $10,306,082 to con voters into passing Prop 47.

An why is it you keep electing democrats?
Is it to have more criminal predators on our streets?

EightCyl March 30, 2016 at 8:30 PM

“every Democrat voted against the bill”

…any more questions???

That's Mr Pugnacious to you March 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM

Lol this is awesome. The criminalcrats are expanding their voter roles, one deminal at a time!

Mountainside Jay March 30, 2016 at 8:34 PM

Eh, the same people against Prop 47 won’t spend a dime to build more prisons to solve our massive, dangerous and inhumane overcrowding problem, to say nothing of allowing new facilities anywhere near them. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Poor Richard March 30, 2016 at 8:36 PM

Too Simple.
Not a felony, so no loss of voting rights.
These perpetrators will keep voting Democratic if they are rounded up to vote.

TIFOKCIS March 30, 2016 at 8:42 PM

Although James Jarred ‘skated’ on a kidnapping charge for intimidating a victim to withdraw money from the victim’s ATM he’s just a ‘low level offender’ until he fires a gun and a 8 year old is stuck in the neck, but its just someone’s elses child’s neck…………….right liberal democrats?

@poor ricardo March 30, 2016 at 8:51 PM

These people don’t vote. Are you serious.

Old Guy March 30, 2016 at 8:53 PM

Well … Voters have a choice. They can un-elect those who voted against AB2369 by electing someone else to that office.


.... March 30, 2016 at 9:04 PM

The democrats will keep getting more voters that way…

Stupid liberal idiots. Then they’ll blame the criminal justice system when something happens to them.

Hey, democrats….how about you housing some of your buddy criminals?

Liberals make me puke!

Hiikko March 30, 2016 at 9:14 PM

Why am I not surprised? Effing liberals don’t own a single brain cell between all of them….

On Our Own March 30, 2016 at 9:14 PM

“…the same people against Prop 47 won’t spend a dime to build more prisons to solve our massive, dangerous and inhumane overcrowding problem…”

democrats of the CA state legislature solved the State’s prison overcrowding problem back in 2011 with passage of AB-109.

The bill changed sentencing on 500 crimes, sentences handed out by the Courts automatically are cut in HALF and convicted Felons sentenced to multi year sentences serve sentences in County Jails rather than State Prisons. Don’t be surprised if first prison closed in CA because of too few state inmates is San Quentin and the land will be rewarded to long time democrat campaign contributors for housing development.

As a result of AB-109 caused overcrowding County Jails now routinely release misdemeanor criminals long before their sentences are complete sometimes within hours after sentencing because beds are taken up by convicted Felons who used to go directly to state prisons.

It’s not about spending a dime it’s about feckless democrat state legislators deciding it is too expensive to house convicted felons in state prisons for year after year so they decided to merely give the problem to CA’s 58 Counties.

Read the bill for yourself

Well.... March 30, 2016 at 9:15 PM

So…can the victims of these repeat offenders sue the legislators for damages? After all, they contributed to the criminals’ ability to commit the crime…………….right?

fred March 30, 2016 at 9:21 PM

@old guy….the low information democrat voters are too stupid to kick anyone out of office. They vote the straight party line and can’t think for themselves…..until it’s too late.

FOUR democrats March 30, 2016 at 9:42 PM

Just FOUR democrats killed the bill.
Just FOUR democrats voted to keep criminals on our streets.
Copy AB 2369 into the search box, click search and read the bill and who voted against it.

funny man March 30, 2016 at 10:07 PM

as a fan of acronyms and acrostics ( i’ve even used here for fun )
I can appreciate the joke, the initialize spells out F U C.
Now fix the dam law

Wandering Around Pushing Vote Buttons March 30, 2016 at 11:03 PM

Who exactly among democrats in state legislature is the designated adult ?

Four democrats denied California voters (YOU) a chance to fix Prop 47.

Melinda March 30, 2016 at 11:46 PM

Can misdemeanors be dropped down 3 years ago or just starting now

Willis March 31, 2016 at 12:55 AM

The Democrats are hell bent on ruining this state and country and have repeatedly proven this fact. They champion themselves as educated and progressive, but there actions prove otherwise.

Duh March 31, 2016 at 4:56 AM

Hey FOUR democrats:

There were FOUR DEMOCRATS and two republicans on the committee.

The vote was 2 for and 4 against the assembly bill.

All FOUR Nays were democrats.

All FOUR of those democrats were towing their party line.

When your door gets kicked in by a repeat offending meth head who steals only $949.99 of your property, you can thank those FOUR idiots and their party for your damaged door, the trauma to your family and the fact that the scum bag perp (if caught) will get off with yet another misdemeanor.


Your reward for voting Democrat March 31, 2016 at 5:02 AM

I’m so sick of these clowns, I will never vote Democrat again.

Mark March 31, 2016 at 5:30 AM

Maybe we can make the 3rd misdemeanor in 3 years a prison term?

Gonzo March 31, 2016 at 6:04 AM

OK everyone this cloud has a silver lining. Thanks to liberal democrat pander to one of their two main constituency’s, cons and corpses, the abandoned crack/dope house at 2179 Fremont street is currently burning down! Set a light by the very dopers who infested it no doubt.

Citizens have been complaining, calling the police, the owner filed an order with the cops to arrest any trespassers caught there(they NEVER did) for well over a year. Well now looks like decent people are spared by grace of a fire suffering the homeless dopers wanderings for a while.

At least they, we, can sleep soundly, safely a few nights not thanks to but in spite of the city government who gives their cops their orders to remain inactive.

Concord city council/what not, thanks for nothing!

Gonzo March 31, 2016 at 6:07 AM

By the way, st this point no gutter dwelling, two time obama voting, loser street trash were harmed in the burning of these one or more structures.


it's me March 31, 2016 at 6:55 AM

I’m not a liberal or a Democrat, but I think anybody who uses the word “libtard”, shouldn’t be able to vote, simply because their maturity level isn’t high enough.

The logical conclusion here... March 31, 2016 at 7:15 AM

…is that the “unintended consequences” were actually intended. Otherwise, wouldn’t Democrats want to fix them?

That's Mr Pugnacious to you March 31, 2016 at 7:51 AM

Here’s the solution to fix prop 47. Get a state wide petition to shut it down. There’s a cut of date to have prisons into all countries and to the date so they can be approved or disapproved (depending on valid signatories) for the November election. This allows the citizens to bypass those fools in Sacramento.

KJ March 31, 2016 at 8:05 AM

Assemblyman Patterson represents Fresno where there has been an increase in crime related to drug abuse. Last September Fresno instituted a Drug Court program, and in January Fresno supervisors voted increased funding for the program. They credit the program with getting 80% of drug abusers into drug treatment (prior to that 70% weren’t even going to court).

I believe one of the provisions of Prop. 47 was mandatory drug treatment, and if it is true that drug treatment was not enforced or drug treatment programs not even available, then of course Prop. 47 would “fail.” A self-fulfilling prophecy, as it were. It would seem, therefore, that Prop. 47 doesn’t need to be fixed; it needs to be enforced.

Personally, with regards to guns, I’d make theft of a gun, regardless of its value, a felony (why does it have to be worth more than $950?). However, I do not agree with throwing non-violent drug abusers in prison. The fact that the US incarcerates more people than any other country on the planet just seems anathema to what this country is about — liberty and justice.

PO'd March 31, 2016 at 8:07 AM

Only one party rule could have denied the will of the people. Of course, this all would be avoided if the state built enough prisons to incarcerate convicted
Build enough prisons!

“Liberalism is a mental disorder”- Michael Savage.

@po'd March 31, 2016 at 8:31 AM

State = taxpayers.

Gummibear March 31, 2016 at 8:53 AM

I’m not defending the Democrats’ poor decision to not consider revising Prop 47, however I will say that everyone blasting “all the liberals” are playing perfectly into the hands of our government. Our political system thrives off this us vs. them mentality. And now you all are just pawns. Because one party’s hatred for the other is so deep, you will automatically support whatever decisions your party makes, even if it is not the right one.

And we even fall pray to unbiased news reporting:
“Criminals Will Continue Manipulating the System” was part of Claycord’s headline for this article. I think is a not-so-subtle indication of Claycord’s political stance. On the front of it, maybe it looks like Democrats voted this down without even a chance. But I, for one, will have to do some more research.

Gummibear March 31, 2016 at 8:53 AM

Oops I meant ***biased news reporting

KJ March 31, 2016 at 8:54 AM

#30 — The “will of the people” (passage of Prop. 47) was for fewer people to be sent to prison for non-violent crimes. The “will of the people” was that fewer of our tax dollars be used to enrich the prison-industrial-complex by building more prisons to warehouse people.

It has repeatedly been noted that it costs more to keep someone in prison than send him to an ivy-league university. Perhaps we should make that the punishment: Commit a crime, go to Yale. Cheaper than “building enough prisons”!

Dr. Strangelove March 31, 2016 at 9:18 AM

Everything is topsy-turvy in this state….We reward criminals, at the expense of the law-abiding citizens…..This is what you idiots that voted for Brown and his henchman wanted, right??

KJ March 31, 2016 at 10:42 AM

#36 — The world is “topsy-turvey” when we are willing to spend millions to incarcerate people for using marijuana, but won’t even indict those who crashed the economy. I don’t hear Republicans clamoring to throw Wall Street shysters in prison.

SK March 31, 2016 at 10:58 AM

Think this is bad? Check out Governor Moonbeam’s latest proposal:

Reynolds March 31, 2016 at 10:59 AM

Every ‘petty’ criminal kept out of jail is another potential voter for the Democratic party.

If you know ANYONE who works in law enforcement, you know that Prop 47 is a boom for criminal activity. If you are not going to even see prison, why not break into a home or car?

Prop 47s intention was to put more small time drug offenders into treatment. According to the LA Times, SF Chronicle, etc that is NOT happening.
“Proposition 47 cases handled by the (LA) city attorney’s office, only 73 of nearly 2,200 drug offenders sentenced (in 8 months) entered some sort of court-ordered treatment” If you like numbers, thats 0.03% of the drug offenders who get treatment.

Prison populations have dropped by about 11%…and that correlates directly to the spike in crime California is seeing. In fact “Los Angeles County patrolled by the Sheriff’s Department have seen property crime climb nearly 8% from last year. Auto thefts alone are up over 20%. ”

If one more democrat tells me that 47 is worth saving, I’m going to punch them in the face.

KJ March 31, 2016 at 11:50 AM

#39 – Under Prop. 47, offenders were required to go to into a drug treatment program. If they didn’t, they’d go to jail. If they aren’t in treatment and aren’t in jail, then it’s not a failure of the proposition but a failure either to enforce the law, or provide funding to ensure there are enough treatment programs (which would make it hard for people to obey the law).

I suspect the problem is inadequate funding for treatment programs; a problem Fresno (Assemblyman Patterson’s district) has finally decided to address.

Ricardoh March 31, 2016 at 11:57 AM

The party of the people. HA Ha Ha ! ! !

Bird lover March 31, 2016 at 1:32 PM

This is a problem.

Nokeem March 31, 2016 at 2:05 PM

What else was in the proposal?!? What other pork from you god awful politicians was attached to this neighborhood saving bill? I want to know before I start writing my letters to the DBags who killed it. I just have a hard time with the idea that politicians put a bill together that would repeal the nightmare of the $950 limitation without something FOR themselves. I’ll be really pissed, but not surprised, if I read it and find some self serving loophole or addition making the bill less than what I read here. I’m just saying.. .

X Lib X Dem March 31, 2016 at 2:14 PM

You see the Democratic party is really in outer space now with no contact with regular Americans. DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE YOKELS. This is just another reason I’m no longer a Democrat.

Reynolds March 31, 2016 at 2:44 PM

#41 – “I suspect the problem is inadequate funding for treatment programs; a problem Fresno (Assemblyman Patterson’s district) has finally decided to address.”

Don’t bet on it.
At the rate offenders are being jailed for offenses that fall under prop 47, we would need to increase funding to drug treatment programs by 1,000 – 2,500% OR, heaven forbid, expect the offender to cover the costs. Wow…funny…we did prop 47 to get people out of jail and reduce prison population and costs…now we have to spend more money on treatment. Right…

And there we go again, it’s always a ‘inadequate funding’ issue. Money.
In the US we have literally thrown trillions of dollars at social programs only to be told that we need to toss more.

Sorry, not buying that this, in addition to all the other government social programs that deal with addiction, is going to make one damn difference. The middle class have been slowly taxed to death because of the well meaning lawmakers who cannot seem to fix a damn thing.

PO'd March 31, 2016 at 3:10 PM

KJ#35 Let’s let everyone out and save the money.

TinFoiler March 31, 2016 at 4:17 PM


I hope you don’t have kids, you must hate them.

Gullible Liberals March 31, 2016 at 5:00 PM

“Under Prop. 47, offenders were required to go to into a drug treatment program. If they didn’t, they’d go to jail.”

Love that word “required” Have seen what drunks and druggies think about required for over 30 years. ONLY thing that gets their attention in most cases of serious addiction is the REAL probability of a lengthy time incarcerated.

Under Prop 47 only sentence hanging over a defendants head is a misdemeanor and in that case going to jail is a great idea.

County Jail is free food, shelter, free medical and a chance to network and learn new crime skills. Refusing treatment and serving the misdemeanor jail time enables them to be back out onto the street free and clear of supervision long before they would have gotten out of rehab.

Prior to Prop 47 Judges held lengthy FELONY sentences over their heads and that Forced people to do rehab. Then after a period of sobriety and another Court appearance the Felony sentence went away.

Hint: A long Felony sentence gets the person’s attention and Forces them to decide on a course of action. Prop 47 gives them an easy way out with minimum inconvenience to them and ensures their drug habit continues.

So bottom line because of overcrowding created by democrats with AB-109 drug user criminals can be back on the street in larger population counties in less than a week with their drug case closed with time served. Prop 47 made things easier on criminals putting them back on the streets with their drug problem intact and minimum inconvenience to them.

Cautiously Informed April 1, 2016 at 12:12 PM

This is just another of the many many examples of government defending and supporting criminals and ignoring the safety of honest law abiding citizens.

Regular Guy April 1, 2016 at 10:59 PM

As a society, we seem to be more critical of the people calling out the bad actors than the bad actors themselves. It seems that the criminals have become the poor victims and the true victims of the crime are forgotten. We have become “sheeple” following the political correctness of the day rather than being principled people that think for themselves.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: