In 1994 California voters passed Proposition 184, also known as the “Three Strikes” law and saw an overwhelming positive effect.

In 1994 California voters passed Proposition 184, also known as the “Three Strikes” law and saw an overwhelming positive effect.

The modifications to this law proposed in Proposition 36 on the November ballot would effectively change the law for the worse. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

According to californiachoices.org, “Proposition 36 would reduce some prison sentences served under the three strikes law by mandating resentencing for non-violent felonies.”

Doing so will release inmates that would otherwise be in jail back onto the streets where they will once gain commit crimes that will put them through the justice system.

The facts speak for themselves. In 1994 the Three Strikes law cut crime in half and moved California from the fourth highest crime rate in the nation to 29th, Â according to threestrikes.org

A yes vote for Proposition 36 will allow criminals to be on the streets and only be locked up after committing a third serious or violent crime.

The current law requires the offender to have been convicted of two violent or serious felonies and at least another felony.

“By changing the third strike requirement to also be serious or violent it not only provides the opportunity for a repeat offender to impact yet more victims, it also stops far fewer serious and violent criminals far later in their career,” says savethreestrikes.com.

There is already a system in place to prevent life sentences for those who don’t deserve to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

“Keep in mind, every ‘Three Strikes’ case is closely reviewed by prosecutors who must prove the prior convictions in court. In the event that the defendant is found guilty of the current felony offense, the judge can, and does, review the merits of the case to decide whether or not to apply the full ‘25 to Life’, or reduce the case to a second strike. On average, only one out of every nine eligible third strikers gets a ‘25 to Life’ sentence,” according to threestrikes.org

California should not sacrifice public safety to save a little money by releasing criminals.

The “Three Strikes” law is not an ancient Code of Hammurabi system better known as the “eye for an eye” rule.

Focus needs to be put on crime prevention, not a “get out of jail free” card for violent offenders.

Proposition 36 needs to be voted down to keep repeat offenders where they belong.

 

www.savethreestrikes.com

http://threestrikes.org/

http://www.californiachoices.org/

 

 

Comments

  1. In a debate about propositions, facts are important. The fact is, Prop 36 does not mandate re-sentencing for anyone as you stated. If passed, it would allow the 2,800 or so people sentenced to LIFE in prison for non-violent, non-serious crimes to apply for re-sentencing. If they are deemed to fit the very tight criteria of Prop 36, their original sentencing judge would determine whether they currently pose a threat to public safety. IF they do, their LIFE sentence would remain in place. If they DO NOT pose a current threat to public safety, they would be re-sentenced to twice the normal sentence given for their non-violent crime.

    Also true is that crime rates started declining in CA in 1993, before the 3 strikes law was passed. Dozens of studies have shown that CA’s decline in crime was not a result of the 3 strikes law. Crime has been going down all of the country since 1993, and in states without 3 strikes law more so than in states with a 3 strikes law.

    Your county, Los Angeles County, under the direction of DA Cooley, has been following the provisions of Prop 36 for a decade and they have seen their violent crime rates fall at a greater rate than the rest of the state. DA Cooley knows that sentencing someone to LIFE for stealing golf clubs or baby formula or being a look-out for a $20 drug sale is not just or cost-effective AND it doesn’t make us any safer. That’s why he has been fighting tirelessly to get Prop 36 passed. (see him say it for himself here: https://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/25/4936580/viewpoints-should-voters-modify.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles).

    Additionally, the 3 strikes law has been utilized widely differently across the state. Commit one crime in Napa and you may get 3 months. Commit the same crime in Kern or San Bernadino County and you get LIFE in prison. This is not a just system.

    Finally, the state corrections department (the CDCR) has determined these 2,800 or so people who, if Prop 36 passes, would be eligible to go before a judge for him/her to determine whether they are a current danger to society, are among the LEAST likely to re-offend. Even less likely to re-offend than the 10,000 or so people the prison system current releases EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

    There is no reason NOT to support Prop 36:
    (1) 3 strikes has not resulted in lower crime rates in CA;
    (2) Prop 36 has been tested for over a decade in Los Angeles County and has resulted in LOWER violent crime rates there than in the rest of the state;
    (3)the DAs of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties support and are advocates for Prop 36;
    (4) it will save the state over $19 billion;
    (5) It is not just to banish people to prison for LIFE for non-violent, non-serious crimes.

    Vote YES on Prop 36. Visit the campaign at http://www.votingdomainnames.com/; facebook at Prop 36, and twitter @voteyeson36

  2. I was under the impression that most students think we are spending too much on prisons and not enough on schools (??) If you want less money going to prisons then you have to reduce the number of prisoners. Or am I missing something?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.