Vote YES on 66

[George_S]

EDIT: better link.

http://www.aclunc.org/yes-prop66.html

[mitchtv]

1. Done

arnold's against it , good enough reason

[SoCalJeffersonian]

2. Vote No on 66

I would think that the fact that major members of both parties are opposed to the measure, as well as every single district attorney in the state that that would be reason enough to vote No on 66.


It is just a bad idea and a very dangerous one at that.

[bemildred]

3. Yes on 66.

Prosecutors are full of shit.

[nolabels]

5. So is Arnold

It will be good when this passes

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger lies about Proposition 66 when he says 'violent prisoners will get out of prison and roam the streets.'

"It is incredibly irresponsible for the governor to try to frighten
people over this initiative. This kind of fear-mongering from Governor
Schwarzenegger is reprehensible," said Sam Clauder, original author of
the proposition and Political Director of the Yes on 66 Committee. "We
who support Prop 66 are just as concerned about the safety of our
families as anybody. Prop. 66 is a fair and balanced reform of the most
extreme "three strikes" law in the country.

"Schwarzenegger is being disingenuous and he knows it. Just like
Gray Davis and Pete Wilson before him, Schwarzenegger is pandering to
the prison guards' union for their multi-million dollar contributions.
Some commentators have said that the prison guards' union has made
Arnold their 'girlie-man.'"

Despite the governor's opposition, a Los Angeles Times' poll
released this week shows that support is strong across the entire
political spectrum. Self-identified conservatives, moderates,
Republicans, Democrats, and independents support Prop 66 by a wide
majority. The ballot measure enjoys the support of conservatives by 2
to 1, moderates by 3 to 1, and liberals by 4 to 1.
(snip)
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1700805.php

[bemildred]

7. Yeah, heaven forfend the prisons should be unfilled.

:puke:

[nolabels]

8. That isn't the half of it, they want to build more them

This is lunacy, life imprisonment for petty crimes. There is even the one women in there doing life for feeding her baby un-purchased milk in a store.

[Pushed To The Left]

4. I was a little torn, but voted Yes

[Bariztr]

6. A YES vote restores some balance to the system

Please do not let the hyperbole of the Governor, district attorneys and correctional officers sway you in this matter.
The three strikes law has put away some bad actors, who without question deserve to be put away.
However, the vast majority of the people committed on strike offenses have not committed offenses that are predatory or inherently dangerous to the general public. Those committed on these harsh sentences are people who possessed drugs for personal use, those who have stolen from department stores, and a whole variety of low grade offenses.
You may hear that judges have discretion to remove strike offenses in order to reduce sentences. This is true, however that right was hard fought and had to be litigated to the California Supreme Court before such discretion was given. Obviously there is a broad inconsistency as to who can or cannot receive such judicial relief.
The bottom line is Prop 66 restores some much needed balance and sets guidelines that can be followed and applied equally throughout the state by all judges in the same way.
I speak of this from personal knowledge as a criminal defense attorney in California with over 15 years of practice. I deal with these cases often and can tell you that the price the families have paid because of this law is devastating.
Please Vote YES!

[SoCalJeffersonian]

11. Simply Not True

Your statement that the vast majority of people punished by three strikes have not committed offenses that are predatory or inherently dangerous to the public is just not true.

While I can understand the concern over drug crime incarceration and what not, the facts are the majority of three strike criminals are the hardest core criminals in the state.

First, only 5% of the state criminal population are three strike offenders.

Two thirds of three strike offenders committed the following crimes:

murder
sexual assault
kidnapping
assault with a deadly weapon
other assault
robbery
residential burglary
illegal possession of a weapon
etc.




The following will no longer be classified as serious crimes worthy of a third strike under 66:

Arson
Most Residential Burglaries
Child Abuse
Elder Abuse
Sexual Battery
False Imprisonment
Criminal Threats
Stalking
Killing and Torturing Animals
Hate Crimes
Child Pornography
Felonious Gang Crimes


Say what you want. But in the 10 years or so that this law has been on the books, murder is down 40% and the crime rate overall is down almost 50%.

[AP]

15. Violent crime is down in all states, and none (AFAIK) has a 3 strikes law

as bad as CA's.

[Sugarbleus]

18. Excellent response! And from someone who KNOWS

I have family members who have gone through the prison system..so that qualifies ME to say what it's like where the rubber meets the road.

The Prison system is out of whack and the state constantly encourages even MORE abusive policies for inmates. It's atrocious. There are a few really great programs for certain inmates in certain facilities...for those programs we are extremely grateful.

There are WAY to many mentally/emotionally unbalanced persons being warehoused inside as we speak...that problem is seen across the country now.
Judges do have discretion but I've seen them use that to POUND accused persons with impunity and send them away for ungodly amounts of time for a simple parole violation...like a dirty drug test or being late to see the parole officers...too many stories to count here.

Definitely, the harsh penalties for minor felonies DO hurt entire families and only serve to aggravate and embitter everyone. The punishments SHOULD FIT THE CRIME. DON'T give all power to the criminal system with thoughtless abandon lest.....NEXT TIME IT COULD BE YOU FACING THE HORROR OF AN UNBALANCED SYSTEM.

[genius]

9. Arnold just put $1,000,000 more funding into the opposition

The commercials against it are misleading. We need to get commercials up talking about slices of pizza and hungry chilren. The voters deserve the facts.

[SoCalJeffersonian]

10. Are you serious?

Or, are you being sarcastic?


Something like only 4% of those serving a three strike sentence had a third strike consisting of a minor non violent crime. The overwhelming majority did actually commit a very serious crime on their third strike.

And of those 4%, the vast majority have a very long history of violent crime.


Jerry Brown of all people is against this proposition and for good reason. It will put habitual/repeat criminals back on the street.

The pizza slice guy is a myth.

http://salvatori.claremontmckenna.edu/publications/pdf/Walshmonograph.pdf

[AndyTiedye]

32. Those People Won't Be Affected By 66

66 doesn't repeal 3-strikes, it just requires that all 3 strikes
be violent crimes.

[bemildred]

12. Drug Policy And California's Prison Population

Have you ever wondered why California's prison population grew from 23,264 in 1980 to 160,846 in July 2000? It is not because rapists and murderers are finally getting their due; for the most part, that was already happening. What has driven the growth of the prison system in California over the past two decades is the 25-fold increase in the number of drug offenders sentenced to prison under harsh new state sentencing laws for virtually every offense imaginable. Because of these laws, California now has the highest rate of drug offender incarcerations in the nation - 134 per 100,000. A rate that exceeds states such as Texas and Louisiana, where compassion and sympathy for law breakers is not highly prized (49 per 100,000 and 106 per 100,000 respectively).

Those who argue that it is sensible policy to treat the self-destructive tendencies of drug users the same way you treat the pathologically violent have clearly prevailed. Consider the fact that today there are 20,862 inmates, approximately the same as the total prison population two decades ago, serving prison sentence solely for drug possession. These are people who are typically cycled through the system repeatedly and then placed back on the street without ever having access to treatment or support. Attempts to obtain treatment for their addiction are often met with waiting lists that are months long. In the meantime, they remain on the streets with few prospects and little hope. Under these conditions, it is not long before many fall back into self destructive drug use and eventually return to prison.

Although such a system seems counter to public safety interests, there are powerful political forces at work in California that promote and sustain the present system. Chief among these forces is the prison guard's union. Because they benefit from prisons teeming with inmates, the guards lavish campaign contributions on political candidates. The influence that the prisons guard's campaign contributions buys, allows them to pressure elected officials to enact sentencing laws that keep inmates in prison longer, thus expanding the overall pool of prisoners and creating a "need" for more prisons. The guards union blatantly uses its political influence to promote the funding of more prisons.

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36 on the November ballot) which is strongly opposed by the guards union, is designed to stop the revolving door of drug addiction by mandating treatment. Only in the event that the defendant refuses treatment can they be sentenced to jail or prison. Research shows that drug offenders who are required to participate in treatment do better than those who are not. When Arizona voters passed a similar law in 1996, crime rates, drug use, and prison admissions all declined substantially. This led Judge Rudy Gerber of the Arizona Court of Appeals to conclude, "As it turns out, the law is doing more to reduce drug use and crime than any other state program - and saving taxpayers dollars at the same time."

CJCJ

[RadiDem]

13. I voted YES !

nt

[Cleita]

14. Already did, especially since Ah-nold wants us to vote no. n/t

[Sequoia]

35. Me too, on all his crap

Nazi boy.

[LWolf]

16. Will do so on election day.

:thumbsup:

[meow mix]

17. but groper says millions of rapists will instantly be set free

how scary!!
sadly, i have a feeling he has lied this into defeat. (hoping im wrong)

[davidinalameda]

22. the numbers in Ahnuld's commercial are wrong

I voted yes

any mandatory sentencing laws are wrong--the judge should have final say on sentencing

[Kadie]

19. '3 strikes' campaign splits Klaas family - article link

'3 strikes' campaign splits Klaas family


By Bill Ainsworth
STAFF WRITER

July 14, 2004

SACRAMENTO – The tragedy of his daughter's murder thrust a grieving Marc Klaas onto the public stage nearly 11 years ago. Now the tough anti-crime law forever linked to Polly Klaas' death has triggered a feud between Marc and his father, Joe Klaas.

They are two of the most prominent voices in a bitter campaign over whether to modify the "three strikes" sentencing law, which was fueled by anger over the 12-year-old girl's slaying in October 1993. Their disagreement over Proposition 66 on the November ballot is in some ways a fight over the political legacy of Polly's killing.

Once united against the original three-strikes law, Marc and Joe Klaas now are so divided on the issue that they aren't speaking to each other.

Marc Klaas believes the nation's toughest three-strikes law works well.

more...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040714/news_1n14strikes.html

[Booster]

20. I have served on 3 juries that were under the 3 strike law

and after doing those, I understand that the current law if flawed and should be changed. All 3 cases were not violent towards people; one was a young man who had 2 felonies, one for possession of A joint, forget the 2nd one, but the case we had to serve on was he took a baseball bat to his neighbor's lawn mower because of a dispute they had. He could have beat the shit out of the neighbor, but he didn't; he beat the shit out of the lawn mower. Under the jury instructions, we HAD to convict him and not a day goes by that I don't think of that young man who has another 23 years to serve. This law needs to be fine tuned and if California lets out rapist, murderers, etc., instead of felons who have not done anything violent, then whoever is in charge of deciding who to release is stupid and should be removed. I voted YES in the name of the young man and don't regret it for one minute.

[Ranec]

21. So, should a rapist ever be let out of jail?

I don't like three-strikes because it forces long sentences on petty criminals which is bad for society.

I admit that I don't have a good answer to how to sentence criminals, but 3-strikes isn't it. People should be able to pay their debt to society, and re-build their lives.

[Piperay]

23. Arnie says NO but

so does former Governors Davis and Brown. I'm not sure how to vote, I'm leaning toward No but I may leave this one blank.

[pdmike]

24. A Public Defender Weighs In on Prop. 66

I am a Deputy Los Angeles County public defender. I work with cases involving the Three Strikes law every day. I have tried at least half a dozen jury trials involving a third strike charge. At the present time, I have two men in state prison, each doing life, for minor offenses as a "third strike." One of them stole a six-pack of AA batteries from a store. The other was found in possession of a small amount of methamphetamine. Both are now doing life.

This proposition MUST pass. There are numerous reasons why it should pass and very few, legitimate reasons why it should fail.

When the Three Strikes law was passed originally in 1994, very few people who voted for its passage had any idea of what they were voting for. I have personally talked with dozens of people over the years since 1994 who have all expressed absolute amazement that someone could go to prison for life for a minor crime such as petty theft with a prior conviction (a felony) or possession of a small amount of drugs. Hardly anyone knew that is what they were enacting when they voted for the Three Strikes law originally.

The proposed change is just and proper. If someone commits two, violent or serious felonies (i.e., "strikes") and then commits a third serious or violent felony, they SHOULD get put away for life.
That aspect of the Three Strikes law would not be changed.

The present law allows for a life sentence for "any" felony if the defendant has two, strike priors. This is entirely too harsh a law and not one that belongs in a civilized society.

The felons who will walk out of prison of Prop. 66 passes are those whose third offense was a minor one. Remember - these are people who may have been convicted of more serious crimes in the past (i.e., their two, strike convictions), but who had done their time and who had been RELEASED, only to them commit a much less serious crime, often decades after the dates of their prior, strike convictions.

A YES vote on Prop. 66 is definitely indicated.

[Bariztr]

25. Agreed

As a fellow PD in Northern California I echo the sentiments of pdmike.
The harshness of the law and the inconsistent application begs for this reasonable modification.

Please do not be swayed by the scare tactics of the opposition. There WILL NOT be 26,000 inmates released on to the streets. What it does provide is for re-sentencing of those who had previously been committed under the law. This is not an open the doors and let them out in the streets running wild.
Don't be swayed by the lies of the governor and the prison guard union, VOTE YES ON 66.

[not systems]

26. Yes Yes Yes! End unjust sentencing.

People who shoplift should never be required to
server life terms this law must be fixed.

[nolabels]

27. This is one messed up system, these ex and current Governors............

Should be ashamed of themselves.

Leaned about this one guy who got the three strikes (25yrs to life)levied on him for cheating on drivers written exam. The other two convictions was unarmed residential burglary many years ago when he was hooked on drugs supporting a habit.

[AP]

28. Brown is running for AG and wants to look hard.

[David__77]

30. I do not want Brown as AG.

He wasn't the best as governor and is a chameleon. I don't think he's trustworthy enough. Further, he's simply too tarnished in the eyes of many. We need to just move past that crop of politicians to be as successful in this state as we can be.

I don't want any "Rose Bird" commercials on the horizon.

[nolabels]

29. This is one more reason BIG MONEY screws up our system

Arnold was installed by it, and now props like this that make sense and really are conservative get trashed by big money. They often do it at the end in a surprise when a counter offensive can't be made also. Using scare tactics and other types of trash politics. I think there is still a good chance it could win which would be a blow for them and victory for us common folks.

Nicholas Finances Bi-Partisan Effort to Prevent the Release of Dangerous
Felons Across California

Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives Unite in Effort to Stop Prop. 66,
Including Governor Schwarzenegger, Former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, and
Popular Rock Bands Orgy and Korn.

IRVINE, Calif., Nov. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Dr. Henry T. Nicholas III,
Co-Founder and retired Co-Chairman, CEO and President of Broadcom Corporation
(Nasdaq: BRCM), has doubled to $3 million his commitment to defeat Proposition
66. This proposition, which former Governor Pete Wilson calls the most
significant threat to public safety California has faced in decades,
significantly dilutes the state's "Three Strikes" law, stripping it of most of
its value in deterring future crimes. However, the most dangerous aspect of
Proposition 66 is that by significantly watered down the standards for what
qualifies as a "strike," and then applying that standard retroactively, Prop.
66 triggers the release of thousands of dangerous felons across the state. The
California District Attorneys Association estimates that 26,000 dangerous
criminals, more than half of the total number kept off of the streets by
"Three Strikes," will be released into our communities by the passage of
Proposition 66.
(snip)
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-02-2004/0002350648&EDATE=


CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS
Prop. 66 in Tough Fight
* Schwarzenegger steps up campaign against proposed changes to the three-strikes law. Backers plan new ad to counter his influence.

By Robert Salladay and Megan Garvey, Times Staff Writers

REDDING — The fight over proposed changes to the state's tough three-strikes sentencing law remained furious going into the final day of the campaign — with both sides launching last-minute ads today.

Proposition 66 would amend the law to allow a life sentence only if a person is convicted of a third felony that is violent or serious. It would remove eight crimes from the violent or serious category and would toughen sentences for some crimes against children.

In the final days of the campaign, it has emerged as the toughest fight on the state's lengthy ballot. The proposition had been well ahead in polls until Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, backed by Henry T. Nicholas III, one of the state's richest men, began an intense effort one week ago to defeat it.

A Field Poll released Saturday indicated that the campaign has had a major impact. The poll was taken over seven days, ending on the day Schwarzenegger's ads began airing. Likely voters interviewed in the first four days favored the proposition 58% to 34%. Those interviewed over the following three days, which included the Wednesday launch of the ads, were split, 48% to 47%. The samples had a margin of error of plus or minus 4%
(snip)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-campaign1nov01,1,1191447.story?coll=la-news-politics-california

[darthmix]

31. How about HELLS YES on 66

This brings our three strikes law in line with the rest of the country. If it meant the end of the world, you think you'd hear the other states complaining.

[meti57b]

33. if they aren't in jail for the first two offenses and the third is minor..

.... they shouldn't expect us to put them in jail for the third offense. Simple as that.

[Hepburn]

34. Done! n/t

[Sugarbleus]

36. Done! n/t