A referendum on crime in the Bay Area: Proposition 36 and the recall of Pamela Price 

Image from East Bay Times. Top: Community members protest for the recall of Pamela Price.

On Election Day, Alameda County’s justice system faces a pivotal moment: California voters will vote on Proposition 36, which allows for felony charges and increases the sentencing for certain non-violent crimes, such as drug crimes, and in Alameda County voters will decide whether to recall the current District Attorney, Pamela Price. 

The reasoning behind the recall campaign, which began in May of 2023, is the claim that Price is not prosecuting enough defendants, and is not seeking harsh enough charges when she does. This led to some community members feeling unsafe and having a lack of trust in their leaders. This desire to return to a “tough on crime” approach directly correlates to the return of Prop 36, which would force DA’s to prosecute defendants who commit certain crimes. However, is Prop 36 really going to make us safer, or will it just be another cause of our overfilled prisons and high taxes? With these questions in many community members’ minds, it is especially important to hear from the youth in the Bay Area.

Junior Ishanvi Verma expressed concerns, stating, “I don’t think there should be an increased sentence on drugs and crimes. If there’s an increase in sentencing, then that’s going to take up more space in jails with people who shouldn’t really be there for that long.” Another junior, Avani Sattikar, shared a similar view, saying, “I don’t think Prop 36 is good because non-violent crimes are usually done unintentionally or without malicious purpose.” Both students agree that Prop 36 would have a negative impact on communities, arguing that it does more harm than good by imposing harsher and longer sentences for non-violent crimes.

Pamela Price’s recall effort is closely linked to Prop 36. When asked about this, Verma commented, “In the Bay Area people want to clean out people who are doing drugs and crimes, which means her decisions related to [more lenient sentencing] would basically oppose most voters.” Sattikar agreed with this analysis, saying, “I think most voters probably don’t see her as a good person anymore because most people think that [a tough on crime approach] was a good thing and what she did went against it.” The desire for a safer community in the Bay Area has likely fueled the support for Price’s recall. This is because her approach diverges from the tougher stance advocated by Prop 36.

Although both students believe that Prop 36 is not necessarily a good thing, there is still the opposing point of view that it can actually benefit communities in California. Those who would decide to vote yes on 36 believe that it would keep their communities safe for children and for people as a whole. They also believe that Prop 36 would confront the growing Fentanyl crisis in California. On the other hand, opponents believe that since Prop 36 aims at petty theft and drug crimes, giving these individuals harsh sentences won’t advocate for any type of rehabilitation process. This divide in opinions highlights tension between prioritizing community safety and also the need for criminal justice reform. While older generations may view Prop 36 as a necessary step to address theft and drug-related issues, younger people are more concerned with the potential of lack of empathy in the sentencing process and the lack of emphasis on any type of rehabilitation for prisoners. This generational gap brings up more important questions about how California can balance public safety with fair and humane treatment within the criminal justice system. 

All in all, the debate surrounding Prop 36 and the recall of Pamela Price highlights all of these tensions between public safety concerns and the potential consequences of stricter sentencing. This leaves the community divided on what path to go forward with to benefit Alameda County’s justice system.