PROP

36

THREE STRIKES LAW.

REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES.

INITIATIVE STATUTE.

        Before we get into what Proposition 36 is, we must first know a little bit about the law.  The law breaks crime into 3 categories: felonies (serious crimes), misdemeanors (less serious crimes), and infractions (violations of a law, agreement, or set of rules).  There are also 3 classes of felonies: violent (i.e. murder, robbery rape), serious (i.e. attempted murder, kidnapping, arson), and neither (i.e. grand theft, possession of a controlled substance).

        In 1994, Proposition 184, also known as the Three Strikes Initiative, was passed in California.  It was intended for stronger laws against repeat felons.  The first strike was a regular prison sentence regardless on whether it was violent, serious, or neither.  The second strike resulted in double the regular prison sentence if the previous strike was violent or serious.  It didn’t matter if the new felony was violent, serious, or neither.  The third strike was lifetime imprisonment with the option for parole after 25 years if the criminal has two or more previous violent or serious convictions for any new felony even if it isn’t violent or serious.  Roughly, there are a total of 137,000 inmates in California; 33,000 are second strikers and 9,000 are third strikers.  The state prison budget is around $9 billion.

Main Idea: What is Proposition 36?

        Proposition 36 is a revision in the California’s “Three Strikes” Law, which was approved in 1994 by the state’s voters as mentioned earlier.  It changes the three strikes law to inflict a life sentence only when the new felony is violent or serious.  Offenders who are currently serving life sentences are allowed re-sentencing if their third strike was not violent or serious and the judge deems the sentence does not pose a threat to public safety.  The life sentence penalty is retained if the third strike conviction involved certain sex crimes, drug crimes, or firearm possession.  The life sentence penalty is also retained if prior strikes were for rape, murder, or child molestation.

        Prop 36 has a fiscal impact on society.  It would cost a few million dollars over the next couple of years, however, over time California would save $70-$90 million in prison and parole expenses as it would free up space in prisons and lessen the number of inmates to support.

Link & Analysis: What does your vote mean?

        By voting YES, you agree Prop 36 is suitable as it makes the punishment fit the crime.  Repeat offenders will be properly punished and will not be released early.  This will help stop overcrowding prisons with nonviolent offenders and provide space for the violent felons.  At least $100 million would be saved annually which could be provided for other priorities like funding for schools and reducing the state’s deficit.

        By voting NO, you believe Prop 36 to be unnecessary.  You would be agreeing with every major law enforcement organization and victims rights group.  Taxes won’t be reduced since more crimes would cost taxpayers more money.  If passed, many convicted felons could petition for a reduced sentence in the amount of time they have to serve for their punishment.  Some of these felons could be released without any supervision.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-36-Three-strikes-changes-approved-4014677.php

Significant Quotes:

“‘Tonight’s vote on Proposition 36 sends a powerful message to policymakers in California and across the country that taxpayers are ready for a new direction in criminal justice,’ said Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project” (qtd. in Kaplan).

--People need to be prepared if this change were to happen, especially the taxpayers since they will be paying more money.  More money will be used as more crimes are committed.

“‘Polls are one thing – this is an actual vote,” Gelb said” (qtd. in Kaplan).

--This is not some kind of petty vote you do on a daily basis; human lives are on the line and therefore more thought needs to be put into consideration.

“‘The historic passage of Prop. 36 overturns the long-held conventional wisdom that it’s impossible to fix our most extreme and unjust crime laws,’ said David Mills, a Stanford law school professor who helped draft the measure with fellow professor Michael Romano.  ‘My most sincere hope is that this victory serves as a turning point that inspires others to advocate for more sane and humane criminal justice policies’” (qtd. in Kaplan).

--Mills believes that Prop 36 has its flaws and that there is nothing that can be done to fix the unjust laws that exist in the criminal justice system.  He only hopes for the best and has a more positive outlook that people will be inspired to promote a much more fair criminal justice policies.

“Reynolds said the passage of Proposition 36 endangers public safety, and ‘when crime rates go up as a result of this,’ voters will want to restore the original 1994 law.  If crimes rates don't go up, then ‘I was wrong and they were right,’ he said” (qtd. in Kaplan).

--Reynolds believes that Prop 36 is the wrong choice and the people will eventually want to revert to the original version of the law.  However, if crime rates do not go up, then he admits his notion is incorrect and Prop 36 is instead the appropriate decision.

Visual Argument & Analysis:

        In this video, a 59 year old woman named Bernice Cubie was sentenced to life imprisonment under the Three Strikes law for possession of $10 worth of drugs.  She was suffering from an advanced form of terminal cancer.  Consequently, she was forced to use a cane when walking and had one of her kidneys removed while in prison.  Despite being no threat to anyone, she has served in prison for 15 years.  In addition, prior to this year, prison doctors recommended that the executive committee of a California parole board to consider a compassionate release for Bernice.  However, even though she has less than 6 months to live, the parole board denied her release.  Unfortunately, under the law, Bernice was not allowed to have another opportunity for parole until 2023.  The law seems unfair as murderers and rapists receive shorter prison sentences when this woman who requires aid to walk and will be supervised by her daughter and a trained drug-treatment counselor be denied an early release to spend the rest of her remaining days with her family.

California Proposition 36
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	7,803,974	69.0%
No	3,504,226	31.0%

           

        In conclusion, Prop 36 passed with votes more than doubling than the amount of those who were on the opposing side.  Personally, I agree YES for Prop 36 since it is better than the original version, Prop 184.  I also found it unfair that someone who committed trivial crimes would spend a lifetime in prison when those who committed a much more serious crime such as murder would have equal punishment.  Where is the fairness in that?  For example, offenders who have a third strike for stealing a pair of socks, attempting to break in a soup kitchen for food, or forging a check for a little amount of money, which could be considered to be pocket change for some, have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

References:

“California General Election.” Proposition 36. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
            <http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/36/index.htm>.

“California Proposition 36, Changes in the ‘Three Strikes’ Law (2012).” 26 Nov. 2012.

<http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_36,_Changes_in_the_
“Three_Strikes”_Law_(2012)>.         

Kaplan, Tracey. “Proposition 36: Voters Overwhelmingly Ease Three Strikes Law.”

            MercuryNews.com. N.p., 7 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. 

            <http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_21943951/prop-36-huge-lead-early-
            returns>.

BY: HENRY HONG