-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shotgun/mad-props-the-official-district-weekly-state-proposition-voter-guide/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
It doesn't state that victim's are allowed to sentence the perp, it only allows those in a position to parole a perp to get the added perspective of the outcome of that particular perps crimes, as well as making sure victims know when a perp who may be violent is let out.
Why would you completely misrepresent it as some the victim's setting a perp's sentence?
All they can do is say "this is what happened to me, specifically, and this is how letting the perp out early would/could affect me" they have NO power of sentencing, only a supposed influence by making clear the outcome of a perps crime to them specifically.
Why wouldn't you want a parole board to have the clearest picture of the situation possible, before making a decision.
Your assessment of the proposition is absolutely unfair.
"Under current law victims have the right to be notified if their offender is released, to receive advance notice of criminal proceedings, and to participate in parole hearings and sentencing. There’s already a state-funded Victims of Crime Resource Center to educate victims about their rights and help them through the process."
While sparking up a gigantic duBois, we were particularly struck by the independent legislative analyst's assessment of the staggering costs of implementing Prop 9: "Potential loss of future state savings on prison operations and potential increased county jail operating costs that could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, due to restricting the early release of inmates to reduce facility overcrowding."
So in answer to your question--about getting the "clearest picture of the situation possible"--we think we're getting that now, at a more reasonable cost.
Don't bogart.
Even approving on a limited scale the three that bear a fiscal impact that you are happy with (1A, 2 and 3) we're talking an additional $2.61 billion, per year, in new debt and, thus new spending. We should really be trying to find ways to reduce our debt and spending, not increase it.
Concerning Prop 4: Could you be a little more specific about your objection to this one?
Concerning Prop 6: This would not only create about 30 new crimes but tighten up the penalties for many old ones and increase funding for critical criminal justice programs such as: County Probation; County Programs for youth offenders and repair and rehab of juvenile facilities; Local violent gang and gun crime enforcement; Prosecution of violent, gang and vehicle theft offenses; County Jail construction and operation and Parolee rehabilitation programs. According to the legislative analyst, only about 18% of convicted felons actually go to prison. Call me a hard-liner but when someone is convicted of a felony, they need to pay the penalties we, as a society, long ago determined that they pay...including serving time in prison.
By the way, crime statutes do not create criminals, criminal behaviors do. If an act or omission is determined by society to be a crime then good citizens will not commit or omit those acts. Others on the other hand, namely criminals, will do so and when they do they should pay the appropriate price for it. I am thinking this cannot possibly be a bad thing for what is supposed to be a civilized society.
Concerning Prop 9: All Prop 9 does is better guarantee the right of a crime victim to be heard. It doesn't give a victim any additional authority over prosecution, sentencing or release; it simply allows the victim to be able to provide the Court with valuable input related to those portions of the process. Nor will all such input automatically be critical of the defendant; some comments could actually be offered to mitigate severity...to plead for lenience on behalf of the defendant. To me, this seems an extremely humane approach to this facet of our criminal justice system.
Concerning Prop 12: The federal government does, indeed, offer many programs and services for its veterans. Here's a link to a quick overview of the billions of dollars in benefits we make available to our veterans at the federal level for everything from disability compensation to education to home loans to dependant support and on and on.
http://www.vba.va.gov/VBA/benefits/factsheets/g...
Does this mean California should not also provide additional help to our State's veterans? Of course not. And by the way, every person who has served in our armed forces since 1973 has volunteered to do so. Perhaps we could better honor their voluntary willingness to fight and die on our behalf by providing them with a lot more in the way of benefits once they return to us?
Re your claim (Prop 6) that "crime statutes do not create criminals, criminal behaviors do," you're simply wrong. Any good legal scholar, philosopher or political scientist will tell you that you can't break a law that doesn't exist; even the phrase "criminal behavior" implies a crime statute. Your argument reminds me of Plato (or was it Socrates), who said that "writing law is like cutting off the heads of a hydra." Nevertheless, we continue writing laws--cutting off hydra heads--and then refining those laws when we find out that criminals have discovered loop holes. We engage in this futile pursuit of perfect justice because, unlike Plato (or was it Socrates) we're running a democracy, and not a republic ruled by philosopher kings who, in the absence of actual laws, rely on their common sense to determine "criminal behavior."
And finally, re Prop 4: No, I can't elaborate--or could, but, like, well, seriously, why bother? When it comes to abortion, there's just very little to argue about any more. You know where you're going to end up, and so do I. I'm kind of immovable on this, and so are you, and we're likely to end up rehashing, what, 50 years of legal argument before finally settling on the raw instinct at the bottom of all that arguing.
I would caution you against assumptions. My observations concerning Props 6, 9 and 12 were just that, observations…an attempt to offer another political perspective. I never indicated I would be voting for them. In fact I intend to vote against any propositions that bear an adverse fiscal impact and have done so, and consistently, for the past three (3) general elections. In the context of our current fiscal realities, adding additional spending and debt, however noble the cause may be is, in my humble opinion, a level of nobility we simply cannot afford right now.
The various “Props proponents” need to get back to us when our State legislators can stop squandering the vast amounts of money we already entrust to them each year.
Concerning crimes: With respect you are only partly correct. To assert that an act or omission is not criminal absent a criminal law forbidding or commanding it is to say that crimes against humanity are not crimes or that crimes against nature are not crimes. It is to assert that murder or rape did not occur in California before we enacted Penal Code Sections 187 and 261 (in 1872). Clearly this is not so.
You are overlooking the distinction between “mala prohibita” (bad because it is prohibited) and “mala in se” (bad in and of itself). Taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, if we had no statutory laws, we would have no crimes. Clearly this is also not so; crimes would still occur, they would simply not be codified.
Prop 6, in part, more clearly defines some crimes and creates (codifies) others. We, as a society, must be able to do this. Had we not done so, for example, it would still be (statutorily) lawful to rape one’s spouse or to rape a person who is unconscious (amendments to the original statute that were added far later).
Lastly, we are not “running a Democracy”. In a true Democracy there exist no co-equal branches of government, no elected representatives and no “unalienable rights”. In a true Democracy, slavery could be lawful simply because a majority of the voters decided it should be so. In a true Democracy women could be deprived of the right to vote simply because a majority of the voters decided it should be so. That both of these injustices were corrected here, in the US, was a function not of a Democracy but of a Representative Republic.
I would humbly refer you the U.S. Constitution; which in no Article or Section references the term “Democracy” but, in Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every State “a Republican form of Government.”
Concerning Prop 4: This proposition isn’t about abortion but about responsible adult notification. I’m decidedly pro-choice; I hope folks will “choose” life whenever possible but it should be their choice to make. This proposition simply requires, with certain exceptions, a physician (or his or her representative) to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant *un-emancipated* minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This Proposition does not require *consent* merely notice. Nor is it a parent that need always be notified. Under certain circumstances the adult so notified can be an adult brother or sister or even a first cousin and even *that* notice can be waived by a juvenile court. This proposition explicitly protects the minor against coercion. The clear intent is to afford an un-emancipated pregnant minor the opportunity to consult with an adult who cares about her before proceeding with her planned termination of pregnancy. It does not prohibit her from having an abortion and does not permit anyone else to prohibit it either.
I think it’s important that we, as responsible citizens, seek out and understand the facts of a proposition before deciding upon it one way or the other. Thanks very much for linking to the official voter guide so that your readers can more easily do so.
It's not us who will repay the bonds it is our children and grandchildren. What gives us the right to decide how the next generations will spend their money?
We need to build and live within our means.
I'll admit I'm a bit torn on the Children's Hospital thingie, but I'm a bit tired of "doing it for the children" all the time. There are many segments of our society who need more care, not just children.
I don't eat babies for breakfast but I also sometimes get annoyed with the "we have to do it for the children regardless of cost" mentality.
And it seems that the whole "predator" angle is merely an attempt to tie this to the most reprehensible members of our society.
Thanks for being an animal lover, Animal Lover. For info on this proposition, visit www.yesonprop2.com.
PLEASE EVERYONE, VOTE YES ON PROP2!
John B: You pick the easiest crime statute to trace when you choose murder--which was illegal in California before the establishment of state statutes, before California was a republic, under the Spanish and (I'm now guessing) probably frowned upon in aboriginal cultures. Prop 6 isn't asking Californians about anything so obvious as murder. Or slavery. Or wife-rapists. I think we can agree that those are pretty much universally reviled, and that we're not talking about those. What is it in Prop 6 that you'd regard as, like, lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape? I'm not seeing it.
Greggory: Please, god, really, the communication on drug-treatment is already so complicated that we don't want to start hauling cardinal-colored, really malodorous fish across the issue. Prop 5 assumes the law is just. Naturally, if a law ain't just, Prop 5 won't do anything to fix that.
Favorite line thus far: Animal Lover's question.
I was simply trying to keep the discussion in the context of current California law, which, of course, is what these Propositions would be affecting.
Jeepers, Will, “lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape?” Really? So laws concerning lesser crimes are, what, unnecessary? Frivolous? Solely intending to “create criminals”? By that standard should we then erase theft or battery or burglary as legitimate crimes since they don’t represent “lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape?” I will concede your point…none of the crimes in Prop 6 sink to the level of “murder/slavery/rape” but, in my humble opinion they will nonetheless prove beneficial to many law abiding persons, yourself included.
Here’s a few I particularly like:
1. Gang members convicted of home robbery, carjacking, extortion, or threats to witnesses would be subject to life terms in prison (Currently they are not. I like this revision because gang members as described in PC 186.22 are “knowing and active participants” not merely hangers-on or wanna-be’s, thus they earn no mercy from me for committing the listed crimes as gang members).
2. Doubles penalties for inmates who commit a felony as part of a gang (They get convicted and then commit additional crimes in jail or prison in furtherance of their thug-dom? They’re done).
3. Generally prohibits probation for a conviction of car theft if the offender has multiple prior convictions for car theft. (Probation after multiple convictions? I don’t think so).
4. Ten additional years in prison for possession of a concealed weapon by certain convicted felons. (The sole purpose that a convicted felon has for carrying a gun is to harm other victims…in my opinion this enhancement isn’t nearly harsh enough) and one last one;
5: Up to four-year prison term for intimidating a witness, judge, or other person for participating in a court proceeding. (Attempts at undermining the criminal justice system in this manner must be dealt with harshly and rapidly.)
How’s that, Will?
There are many additional potential benefits to this Proposition having to do with increased funding and support for all levels of law enforcement, but that’ll do for now I think.
Now I totally understand the fiscal crisis argument AND the very valid philosophy behind not borrowing your children's money, but Prop 1A is an infrastructure bond that has tangible economic benefits to the state immediately...i.e., jobs, which are going to be harder and harder to find. Plus, there is a potential revenue stream or tangible asset to sell once completed.
While bonds for education and puppies are no less important, in times like these jobs and consumer spending will pull us out of this mess.
Please don't flip so easily on this issue by lumping all bond measures in one big sack.
But seriously: You sound good shouting "hold the presses."
And seriously seriously: the problem with measures--including this year's--is that voters are working in zero-gravity, without context. For instance, I'd argue that, contrary to Prop. 6, we should reduce dramatically the number of crimes that require a prison sentence (or even jail) and use the savings (in new prison construction and corrections budget) to build something really useful like a railroad (of course, we could go back to the 19th century and use prison labor to build railroads). But only legislators could work that sort of budgetary and political magic; we use the referendum system to treat discrete symptoms with, like, no attention to how this stuff is interconnected.
And I understand that--um, what did you call it?--flipping on an issue is un-American (along with changing one's mind when presented with new information, striving for a superior education, language skills). And I know you're not saying this, Andy. But too many papers, pundits and politicians (pardon the alliteration) chain themselves to positions and declare themselves unmovable. Open-mindedness, pragmatism used to be the hallmarks of what passed for American philosophy; now our philosophical code is stubbornness dressed up as moral rigor.
And let me just add one last thing, Andrew: I really admire your comments. Thanks for them.
And there is nothing unAmerican regarding changing your mind based on new information. For instance, I now think Johnny Depp is a fine actor and that Brussles sprouts are delicious.
It's been fun being all three branches of government for the last 60 seconds! Peace out.
I'm with you on *federal* drug laws. The Fed has no business being involved in a "War on Drugs" unless it's restricted to federal lands (where it has sole jurisdiction). Across the board decriminalization at the State level, however, is quite another matter. I don't know about you but I happen to like living in a State where it's illegal to sell drugs to kids; or to manufacture drugs in a neighborhood when a simple slip can result in a crater the size of half a city block, or to leave dirty needles strewn about for kids to inadvertently infect themselves with. Should people be free to put whatever they want into their own bodies? Absolutely. The problem is most folks who ingest psychoactive substances stronger than caffeine and nicotine often aren’t content to stay in their rooms and count all the pretty purple elephants. They tend to stagger or drive about and kill and injure people or do so to themselves, causing all sorts of havoc and mayhem in public places.
The moment you can assure me that the only person who gets killed or hurt by a person abusing drugs is the person abusing drugs, you'll have my vote on across the board decriminalization of all "personal usage" drug laws.
cents more to decrease horrific animal cruelty?
PROP 2 will not take effect until 2015, which gives California producers plenty of time to transition to humane end environmentally friendly production systems. More humane treatment of farm animals improves food quality and safety.
PROP 2 is better for the animals, people and the environment!
I got an Idea. How about a publication that supports the institution (military) that actually VOLUNTEERS, SWEARS, TRAINS and FIGHTS to defend the Constitution, including the amendment that keeps your bills and paychecks paid. Did you stop to consider the National Guard of this state? Better hope that shit never hits the fan in the LB.
I can't assure you that drug users won't commit crimes, John B. But how about we agree that punishing drug users because they might commit another crime is kind of Philip D. Dick nightmarish. How about we just punish people for the crimes they commit, rather than criminalize behaviors we think MIGHT lead to crime? That jurisprudential philosophy (along with restoring the independence of judges, rather than tying their hands with sentencing requirements) could cut corrections spending dramatically. Now.
"Prop. 5 strips judges of the authority to do what their title demands they do from 9 to 5: make judgments." The Fed did that over 20 years ago by creating that loveliness known as "mandatory minimum sentencing." Talk about judges being stripped of authority. Passing Prop 5 just means that judges won't have to send drug users to jail. Aside from David Crosby, I don't know of a single drug ab/user who benefitted from time in the slammer.
~~~
wswaim: “I'd argue that, contrary to Prop. 6, we should reduce dramatically the number of crimes that require a prison sentence (or even jail)…”
John B.: “wswaim: Just for the sake of clarification, which specific crimes would you advocate that we remove from those that require a prison or jail sentence?
wswaim: “I'd immediately rescind the Three Strikes law--it's a financial disaster for the state--legalize many drugs, regulate others and wipe out drug offenses.”
~~~
I asked you about *specific* crimes because, unlike desiring to rescind a sentencing guideline that impacts repeat offenses; rescinding actual offenses requires a tad more commitment to one's cause. For example: I get that you don’t like that a 2-time armed robbery convict can go to prison for life for committing *any* 3rd felony, but it’s quite another matter to advocate for doing away with the crime of armed robbery altogether. Do you see the distinction?
So, again, besides the drug laws you would rescind, what crimes, specifically, would you advocate that we remove from those that require “a prison sentence (or even jail)"?
I didn’t credit 3-Strikes for the falling crime rate in the late 90’s, I simply said one might make that argument. And the downward trend in the late 90’s actually coincided with the economic boom credited to the Republican-controlled Congress that managed to constrain Clinton’s tax and spend philosophies : ) But crime, does indeed tend to increase during tough economic times. There were no doubt many factors that influenced that downward trending crime rate; hence my statement “…can be, *at least in part*, attributed to 3-strikes”.
We do, indeed “punish people for the crimes they commit”, Will, that’s why a person who kills someone while under the influence of narcotics get's booked for murder or manslaughter *AND* for being under the influence. But the entire reason for the current under-the-influence laws is because people who are under-the-influence are more likely to commit other crimes and kill and injure people while doing so. Their artificially diminished inhibitions tend to cause them choose to victimize someone when they might not have when sober or their impairment tends to cause them to be more slow to react while driving and take out some innocent family where they might have been less likely to otherwise.
Get the difference?
Dave Wielenga: Howdy! So if I understand you; you would erase the distinction between "any person who actively participates in any criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and who willfully promotes, furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang" (CPC 186.22) and any person who sits on the Board of a Corporation, a University Alumni Association or the Rotary Club?
I suppose that’s one approach, but are we to now penalize people for NOT committing crimes?
Is your intent to minimize a person's affiliation with a criminal street gang since, gee, people join other organizations all the time, why pick on the poor gang members?