Up until the November elections of 2012, California was once regarded as the state with the harshest “Three Strikes” law in the country. Before Proposition 36 was passed, Prop 184, most commonly known as the “Three Strikes” law, imposed harsher sentencing for repeating offenders. When passed by voters in 1994, second time offenders received double the prison sentence of the first felony, while third time offenders would receive 25 years to life in prison. As a direct result of the “Three Strikes” law, in 2011 8,800 inmates were serving prison terms in California’s prison system. After passing with a 69% voter approval rating, Proposition 36 modifies parts of California’s “Three Strikes” law that would change future sentencing and would allow the possibility for re-sentencing for convicted felons.
With the passing of proposition 36 and the repeal of the Three Strikes Law in California, relatives of incarcerated family members are rejoicing after years of fighting for their loved ones. 66-year-old Teresa Valdez is one such person. Ever since her son had fallen victim to the Three Strikes Law, forced to serve a 53 year to life sentence on possession of marijuana, she has been a staunch activist in repealing the law. At a protest rally in 2009 Valdez despairingly told a reporter, "I will not be here to see my son released." Little did she know, only a few years later the law which put her son behind bars would be repealed, and she would have a chance at seeing him again. Barbara Ellis whose brother was sentenced to 25 years to life an another small charge commented, "Oh my God, I'm just so elated and grateful...It's not just my brother who has been incarcerated. I've been incarcerated, waiting for him." Now it is only a matter of time before these concerned family members are reunited with their loved ones.
Analysis
Since the Three Strikes Law was passed in 1994, masses of law breakers have received unreasonable sentences on small charges. Valdez's son was given 53 years to life on a simple drug possession charge for a drug that is now legal for recreational use in two states. Ellis's brother was sentenced to 25 years to life on a charge that normally would have called for 1 to 3 years at most. Ellis who is the founder and president of the FILO (Families of Incarcerated Loved Ones) organization says, "We've seen fathers taken from their children for life for stealing pizza, mothers locked up for 25 to life for possession of marijuana. Many family members have died or are too sick to celebrate a new life for their family." For individuals in such situations, the Three Strikes Law is simply inhumane. It is no secret that California is running out of space in it's prisons, and the cost of retaining inmates is going up. There is no reason to keep small-time offenders locked up when they aren't truly hurting anyone and could better benefit society by doing such things as community service.
I believe this photograph says a lot about the hardships of the families of incarcerated inmates and what they have to go through. Phrases on this poster such as, "Incarcerated Families" and "Stolen Lives" really stand out to me. What would it be like to be in their shoes?
With proposition 36,
I believe it will help correct the justice system. In California, if one gets
commits three crimes then they could get life in prison. This new proposition
would change this so an individual only goes to prison if their third strike
was serious or violent. With this new law I feel like its more fair because it
give an individual a chance. There are many circumstances in life and if an individual
decides to turn his/her life around by ending their life in crime but ends up
being blamed for a crime only to get them to prison, it doesn’t seem fair to
give them life in prison. Life in prison is a serious time and one has to think
of the affects it can bring to one. This new law will allow the right
individuals to be put in prison and keep the ones that don’t deserve to be
there out.
There are those who worry that it will cost the taxpayers a
lot of money but according to Yeson36.org, it will actually save $100 million
per year which will help fund schools, help fight crime, and reduce the chances
of raising taxes.
Link and
Analysis
In an article by Jacob Sullum, he explains on the affects proposition
36 will have. He explains that out the 300,000 in-mates in prison, they will be
able to appeal their sentence and if “a judge determines that doing so would
not pose an ‘unreasonable risk to public safety’” then they might be set free. According
to a Stanford law professor Michael Romano, many inmates third strike are only
for possession.
In another article of
the State News Service, they state that California has an extreme way of carrying
out sentences. Out of 4000 inmates that are in for life, 2000 of them are in their
third strike for committing a nonviolent or a non serious third offense. Prisons
are being filled up with people who deserved less time than they were given and
are only just taking up space and state budget with their given prison
sentence. With the new law, the state not only saves money but gets the correct
prisoners into their time.
Some may argue that those that commit a crime again and again
might be leading up to a worse crime from robbing your local pharmacy to killing
an innocent by stander but that is just going to an extreme. There are people
who commit crimes in order to feed their children because they could barely get
by with what society gives them. Of course that does not mean that one should
let people commit crimes because as the saying goes once you did the crime you
got to do your time. Justice should be served but fairly. Giving a fair
sentence is the proper thing to do in society because then we would just be putting
people in prison for no good reason.
Sullum, Jacob. "Striking injustice: California
sentencing reform." Reason Nov. 2012: 12+. General OneFile. Web. 26 Nov.
2012.
"US/CALIFORNIA: 'THREE-STRIKES' VOTE A HUMANE STEP
PROPOSITION 36 STOPS LIFE SENTENCES FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENSES." States News
Service 7 Nov. 2012. General OneFile. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
Significant
Quotes
“The state should not
allow the misallocation of limited penal resources by having life prison
sentences for those who do not pose a serious criminal threat to society. The
punishment should fit the crime."-- Steve Cooley, Los Angeles County
District Attorney
The part that I found most important of this quote is when
he said that punishment should fit the crime and if not doing so it just and
unjust punishment.
The Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution states that "cruel and unusual
punishments [shall not be] inflicted".
This quote is also important because even in the beginning of
the making of this country, U.S. had made it clear in their constitution to not
do any strange or cruel punishments.
Visual Argument & Analysis
In this cartoon, it shows two prisoners in a jail cell and
one of the prisoners explains by saying “I tried to turn my life around and apparently
I made an illegal U-turn”.
This was an interesting cartoon because it not signifies
the fact that many prisoners are there because a small crime they’ve committed
but it also signifies the fact that some are trying to turn their life around and
in the end might be put to prison for something that might have been blame to
on them. It does not seem right to send a person to jail just because they made
a wrong turn or maybe just did not see the stop sign. Prison are being over
crowded with many who don’t derserve to be there and with proposition 36 it
helps fix that. By Yanet Gutierrez
When it comes to the three
strike laws that some states have adopted here in the United States some say it
is harsh on criminals. California’s 3 strike law which was adopted in 1994 stood
out as the harshest in the U.S. . In 1992 there was 1000 slayings in the Los
Angeles area and in 2010 the number had dropped significantly to 297 slaying,
less than 1/3 than it was in 1992 (Mandalit del Barco). Some critics may
point out that some criminals are sent 25 to life because of some petty crime
like theft. I tell you that a crime is a crime from murder to stealing and no
sympathy should be given to any criminals. Mike Reynolds a three strike author
whose 18 year old daughter was killed by a convicted drug addict who was barely
released from jail at the time has commented on the issue, “"Once someone
has been convicted of two serious or violent offences, I suggest it's pretty
clear what they are capable of," he said, "If this passes, we are
likely to see property crimes going up all over the state, and in very short
order." (Marisa Lagos). In short too keep
our society functioning we need to keep those criminals away from our society
and to keep them locked up for good.
Link and analysis:
In an article by the
San Francisco Chronicle a Stanford Law professor Mike Romano argues that
non-violent third strike offenders that are serving life sentences are less likely
to a violent crime compared to other criminals. He claims that only, “Four
percent qualify as high risk of committing a violent crime if released,
compared with 20 percent of the total prison population, according to state
assessments” (Marisa Lagos).
In an another article
written by Neel Thakkar for The Stanford Daily, Michael Romano states that“A life sentence for petty theft or drug
possession is excessive” .Michael Romano who is the director of the Three Strike
Project. The Three Strike Project argues in favor of a third strike client who
has not committed a non-serious and non-violent crime
While some may argue
that The Three strike law is unfair on criminals who commit non-violent crime.
The pointy is what is stopping these criminals from committing a serious crime
later in life? For example Mike Reynolds daughter was killed in 1992 by a drug
addicted criminal who recently got out of jail. Just because the crime is
non-violent what is stopping the criminal from committing one?
List
of arguments from the State of
California proposition 36 general election information 2012
Just like before, Proposition
36 allows dangerous criminals to get their prison sentence
REDUCED and then RELEASED FROM PRISON! So who does
Proposition 36 apply to?
• Criminals so dangerous to
society that a District Attorney chose to charge them with a
Three Strike offense;
• Criminals so dangerous that a
Judge agreed with DA’s decision to charge;
• Criminals so dangerous that a
jury convicted them of that offense;
• Criminals so dangerous that a
Judge imposed a 25-to-life prison sentence; and
• Criminals whose legal appeals
were denied.
Visual Argument
In this picture it is showing a crime scene with a gun and money as evidence. It points out that some crimes can be a small
petty crime such as stealing and it can escalate into a violent one which can
lead to murder. In the quote " Isn't one violent crime or three petty
crimes enough to know a criminal?" is pointing out to the idea that action speaks louder then words. That the actions a person commits is a reflection of themselves and why should society allow criminals to walk and roam freely in our streets? The answer should be we should not let criminals be on the streets because they present a danger to us and our loved ones.
Resources:
Barco, Mandalit del. NPR. 1 January 2011. 23
November 2012
<http://www.npr.org/2011/01/06/132677265/las-homicide-rate-lowest-in-four-decades>.
California State General Election Ballot Sheet. California.gov.
22 October 2012. 23 November 2012 <http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/36-arg-rebuttals.pdf>.
Lagos, Marisa. SFGATE. 28 November 2011. 23
November 2012
<http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/3-strikes-Proposed-law-tries-to-restore-intent-2296566.php#page-2>.
Thakkar, Neel. The Stanford Daily. 29 November
2011. 25 November 2012
<http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/11/29/three-strikes-project-drafts-ballot-initiative/>.
I
believe we should change the three strikes law. If a criminal is being charged
for a serious crime like rape or murder they should not have the benefit of the
3 strikes chance. These people should be punished to the fullest extent of the
law, not give another 2 opportunities to do it again. Same goes for people that
commit small crimes. A person should not get a life sentence for doing something
minor.
Norman
Williams was` a man that once though he would never be free again. This man was
sentenced to life in prison after committing three crimes thus getting three
strikes. What were his crimes? Theft, in 1987 he was caught burglarizing an
apartment that was being fumigated. In 1992 he got caught stealing tools from
an art studio and finally 1997 Williams got caught stealing a floor jack form a
tow truck. These were his three strikes. What Williams did is a crime and
should be punished rightfully so, I disagree that he deserved to get life in
prison. Luckily for Williams 2000 Los Angeles County attorney Cooley order a
review of cases to see who did not truly commit serious crimes. William’s name
along with another 60 inmates came up for review. Although only 60 names came
up there is a possibility that many other inmates are stuck in the same
situation Williams was in. By having the three strikes set up we are
essentially letting some criminals get away with real serious crimes, heck,
they have a second opportunity to commit the same crime again before risking
life imprisonment. These more serious criminals are the ones that should not
benefit from the three strikes law; we are putting the general public in danger
by letting these people back into society.
The
cons for this law completely outweigh the pros. It doesn’t give the court total
control, if a criminal committed a serious crime for the first time is going to
be really though to give them life in prison. What about young criminals,
teenagers are reckless, insane, and driven by hormones; would it be fair to
give them life in prison for getting in trouble with the law for their third
time? This law cost the tax payers more money to maintain since it puts more
prisoners into prison for a longer period of time. This law may target repeat
offenders but is there a better way to go about this? Can we get programs to
help these people? Sure it will cost money but would you rather pay to
rehabilitate these minor criminal so they will come back to society as a
functional individual or just pay for their housing, food, and everything else
we pay for while they are serving their life terms in prison?
Quotes
“Fix it or lose it”
(Cooley)
Cooley
knew this law is flawed so either we fix it or get rid of it because as it
stands it is not really helping anyone.
“Under California’s version of three strikes,
first and second strikes must be either violent or serious. These include
crimes like murder, attempted murder, rape, child molestation and armed
robbery. But in California, ‘serious’ is a term of art that can also include
crimes like Norman Williams’s”
How are
we distinguishing what is and what is not a serious crime? Either we figure it
out or get a new law system.
Is
committing three small crimes equivalent to murder? Should these people receive
the same punishment? Answer to both is no. These criminals should be punish to
the degree of their crimes. Not by how many time they commit the crime.
When discussing the “Three Strikes” law, two major props
come to mind, Prop 184 and Prop 36. Prop 184, also known as the “Three Strikes” law,
was the initiative that came in place in 1994 that created harsher prison
sentences for repeating offenders. Prop 36, coming off of it’s recent victory
in November of 2012, would soften the “Three Strikes” law by making it that a
third strike conviction must be of a serious or violent felony. Prop 36 would
also allow the possibility for current convicted felons to be released early or
allowed a reduced prison sentence that didn't have certain prior felonies.
While Prop 36 is the first statue that modifies elements of
Prop 184, it’s not the first prop to make it to California’s voter ballot on
the subject of the “Three Strikes” law. In 2004 California’s voters narrowly
shot down Prop 66 with a 52.7% percentage. Prop 66 was the first attempt to
modify Prop 184, but why did it loose then? Don’t Prop 66 and 36 essentially do
the same thing? When comparing both propositions, the only similarity they have
is how they look at third strike convictions. Other aspects of these statues are
very different and are exactly why Prop 36 successfully passed.
Prop 66 grew heavily in favor when the state’s budget needed
reformations. Prop 66 woud've made it that a third or second strike conviction must
be of a serious or violent felony, rather than any felony, to receive the
maximum sentence. It would also redefine certain serious or violent felonies
and could affect the status of current convicted felons whose third strike was non-serious or non-violent. Many consider Prop 66’s failure to be a result of it’s
opponent last-minute advertising campaign. Supporters such as Arnold Schwarzenegger voiced their opinions to ensure that Prop 66 didn't pass.
In this video, current Governor of California at the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is seen in this commercial opposing Prop 66. Many felt that this commercial fed on the fear of having dangerous criminals out on the streets. I for one do remember seeing this ad campaign and wondering why would our government allow thousands of criminals out on the streets. People in favor of Prop 66 rejected this commercial stating that it wrongfully portrayed the proposition and gave false information.
Main Idea:
While California may have been ready for a change in their "Three Strikes" law, Prop 66 wasn't the right statue to do so. The biggest difference in Prop 36 is that is doesn't allow the possibility for the resentencing of third strike offenders who were priorly convicted of rape, murder, or child molestation. It also imposes the life sentence on current offenders whose third strike conviction was of certain non-serious and non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved fire-arm possession. Rather than attempt to redefine certain felonies, Prop 36 ensures that criminals of serious and violent conviction are kept behind bars. Many people felt that Prop 66 would create a loophole that would allow the possibility for thousands of felons to be released on the streets or receive shorter sentences.
One of the reasons why Prop 66 and 36 grew popularity was due to the heavy population California has in its prison systems. Sending people to jail for life can be an expensive decision especially when the tax payers are the ones paying the bill. People felt strongly about sending individuals away strictly because of the "Three Strikes" initiative for something petty as stealing $150 in clothing or falsifying a check was wrong. We should reserve stricter sentences for criminals such as murderers, rapists, and child molesters. The image to the left is an example of how our prison systems are full. Overcrowding jails is not only an issue for the tax payers but also for the inmates. It creates a security risk in our prison systems and doesn't allow the possibility for rehabilitation.
In the
article written by Harriet Chiang, she discusses the various reasons why Prop
66 didn't pass and the various opinions on the subject. Opponents of Prop 66
believed that the initiative would open the door for 26,000 inmates to possibly
receive a reduced sentence. She also goes on to talk about how narrow the vote
count was. Prop 66 was ahead early in California's absentee ballot,
but Prop 66 opponents came back to win due to their successful ad campaigns,
such as Arnold Schwarzenegger's commercial. The article also goes on to discuss
how out of the other 23 states that have similar three strikes laws, California
is the only one that imposes the longest prison sentence for non-serious or
non-violent third time offenders.
Unlike
Prop 184 where the voter approval rating was immense, Prop 66 lost a narrow
campaign. Since Prop 66, California has been ready for a change to it's
"Three Strike" law. Factors such tax dollars plays a big role in the
need for change. Keeping individuals incarcerated can be a million
dollar decision, especially when it's unnecessary. Our "Three Strike"
law should return to the essence of why it came into effect, which was to keep
dangerous criminals off the streets for longest time possible. Prop 66 also
opened the door for Prop 36. Writers of Prop 36 were able to analyze why the
first initiative was unsuccessful, mainly due to the fear of
inmates being released or given shorter sentences. Prop 36 creates safe
ways that ensure that criminals that have been convicted of prior felonies
were serious and violent, stay in prison away from the regular population.
Significant
Quotes:
"Backers of Proposition 66 say they sought to fix what they consider a
major flaw in the hard-hitting law that has led to some small-time thieves and
drug offenders being put behind bars for life" says Harriet Chiang.
Many people don't agree with the fact that some people are
serving life sentences for petty crimes. There was one instance where a man was
convicted to serve 25 years to life in prison for being in possession of a
fraction of a gram of methamphetamine. Many people believe that our
judicial system treats every case similarly rather than focusing on each one
individually.
"At a news conference Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said he
was open to the idea of changing the law and he plans to speak to the state
attorney general and legislators concerning "three strikes"
reform." says Terri Figueroa.
This says something about what was wrong with Prop 66 and
184. Arnold Schwarzenegger was one of Prop 66 biggest opponents. The fact that
Arnold sees a flaw in the "three strikes" law is important. Many
supporters and opponents of Prop 66 do see a problem with Prop 184, but what
was it? Was it the fact that Prop 66 would redefine certain felonies and allow
the possibility for certain felons to be released? The biggest issue here is
keep dangerous criminals off the streets and allow others to be rehabilitated
into society.
Resources:
Figueroa, Teri. "Prop. 66 Supporters Vow to Continue
Fight to Reform 'three Strikes' Law." North County Times.
N.p., 04 Nov. 2004. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.nctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/elections/prop-supporters-vow-to-continue-fight-to-reform-three-strikes/article_418de546-b88d-5daa-9496-92c3ac837711.html>.
