The Lost Proposition: Prop 66

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. 

PROPOSITION 66/ Measure to limit 3 strikes

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>.

Chiang, Harriet. "PROPOSITION 66 / Measure to Limit '3 Strikes' Sentencing Barely Passing." SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/PROPOSITION-66-Measure-to-limit-3-strikes-2638519.php>.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_36,_Changes_in_the_%22Three_Strikes%22_Law_(2012)

By Richard Sanchez