.
.
.
I’m writing this piece to congratulate YOU on being part of the forward march of American progress, an integral part of Martin Luther King’s long “moral arc of history” which “bends toward justice.” Like the man said, he “may not get there with us,” but here we are, getting a little closer.
Since Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971, this great nation has become more and more of a police state, keeping more of its citizens incarcerated than any other nation on earth, often for the pettiest things. And given the timing of that declaration, and the totally biased, racist way this War has been conducted, it’s fair to say it was an equal-and-opposite reaction to the Civil Rights victories under Nixon’s predecessors Kennedy and Johnson. And this Prop 47 will be one of the first and biggest pullbacks of this War.
Maybe the biggest. Remember, as California goes so goes the nation eventually – on nearly every gauge of progress. With low-level non-violent crimes being re-classified, we estimate 10,000 people who don’t need to be in jail or prison, who should be out contributing to the economy and supporting their families, will go free. The estimate I HAVEN’T seen, that I’m still looking for, is how many folks who are ALREADY free but with a felony on their record, will become free of THAT, will be able to apply for jobs, school, etc, without having a red F on their forehead? And how much will THAT add to our economy?
And it’s also exciting that this is WE THE PEOPLE doing what not enough of our political representatives have the spine to do, in both Parties’ terror of the gargantuan political power of police and prison guard unions, which during this long fruitless war that enriches them so mightily, have become a lobbying powerhouse as fearsome as the NRA or AIPAC. In the 43 years of this Long Fruitless War, California has built TWENTY new prisons and only TWO new universities. Let’s make sure the passage of Prop 47 is the beginning of the reversal of THOSE messed-up priorities.
In case you missed it, this initiative, in the words of its backers, will:
- Improve public safety.
- Reduce prison spending and government waste.
- Dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to K–12 schools, crime victim assistance, mental health treatment and drug treatment.
“Proposition 47 is sensible. It focuses law enforcement dollars on violent and serious crime while providing new funding for education and crime prevention programs that will make us all safer.
“Here’s how Proposition 47 works:
- Prioritizes Serious and Violent Crime: Stops wasting prison space on petty crimes and focuses law enforcement resources on violent and serious crime by changing low-level nonviolent crimes such as simple drug possession and petty theft from felonies to misdemeanors.
- Keeps Dangerous Criminals Locked Up: Authorizes felonies for registered sex offenders and anyone with a prior conviction for rape, murder or child molestation.
- Saves Hundreds of Millions of Dollars: Stops wasting money on warehousing people in prisons for nonviolent petty crimes, saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds every year.
- Funds Schools and Crime Prevention: Dedicates the massive savings to crime prevention strategies in K—12 schools, assistance for victims of crime, and mental health treatment and drug treatment to stop the cycle of crime.”
Oh – why am I congratulating YOU specifically?
I suppose I’m taking a chance there, but not TOO big of one. I’m congratulating you for being part of this noble revolution, because I see that it’s leading very handily in the polls, so there’s a good chance – a 2/3 chance – that the person reading this story IS going to vote YES on 47. But in case you’re not sure, think about being on the right side of history and do a little research.
That’ll also be a historic shift, for California voters (on a non-Presidential year!) to come out on the side of liberty and justice over an ever-expanding Prison Industrial Complex. This has not been the case for decades – we Golden State voters have been as bad as our lawmakers. I’m guessing the fact that Prop 47 will probably pass, as will marijuana legalization, as would gay marriage, is that our voting ranks are being slowly filled with younger, wiser folks, as our vindictive, terrified, racist forbears shuffle regularly off this mortal coil.
Oy! That’s not a positive way to wrap things up! Vote YES on 47, brothers and sisters!
Very good wrote up.
Thanks for your help bro, you and Diane.
Perhaps at 63 I am not yet among the vindictive, terrified, racist forbears who are passing on. That might explain why I was always opposed to the sloganeering of Three Strikes whiched promised to restrict itself to serious and violent crimes but in the hands of police and prosecutors it morphed into the shoplifting plus a serious crime equals 25 years with “serious” meaning you didn’t become an unpaid undercover agent willing to lie or whatever it took to find someone else to testify against so off you go for as long as we can make you. Perhaps this will end the waste of money locking up otherwise law abiding citizens causes and free police to something other than kick down doors and shoot dogs.
yeah i know that was mean … huge generalization, but a TRUE generalization. lotsa old folks are really cool, and lotsa young people are racist selfish jerks … but LESS OF EM!
With all due respect – terrible analysis.
I could not agree more that prosecuting any property, forgery or drug crime with such absurdly low amounts as a Felony is preposterous. But as you point out laws are made by legislators, and legislators are elected by us, the People, so this is what we must have wanted at some point.
Hey, gotta achieve those incarceration rates unrivaled in the entire (not just the ‘civilized’) world somehow but I digress…
Let’s start with the headline… Liberty and Justice for All. All you say? Au contraire.
This proposition specifically excludes two distinct groups of people. 1) those convicted of murder and 2) those required to register as Sex Offenders pursuant to Penal Code 290.
Let’s back up here and remind ourselves that the current charge in question is what amounts to a petty theft / fraud or minor drug possession offense. Why on earth would there be different rules for people with a criminal background that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with a property crime?
Rarely have I seen more deceitful propaganda than in this proposition.
The fact that Rapists and Child Molesters are specifically called out demonstrates the incendiary nature of this proposition as they are already covered as those who are required to register as sex offenders? So why make special mention of them? Hmmmm…
“KEEPS rapists, murderers and child molesters in prison: Maintains the current law for registered sex offenders and anyone with prior convictions for rape, murder or child molestation.”
Rapists, Murderers and Child Molesters, no doubt, need to serve their sentences for their crimes. As does every other criminal. But this will punish them again for the crimes for which they presumably have finished their sentences (otherwise they would not be at liberty to walk into a store to shoplift). How is that acceptable?
This will NOT KEEP rapists, murderers and child molesters in prison. This will PUT BACK in prison people, who have served their sentences, for their unrelated misdeeds of the past. This applies to every person registered under PC 290. There are 100,000 of those in this state, a quarter million in this country, who would fall under this distinction. Going back to the 1940’s. As a matter of fact somewhere I read that there are over 100 individuals required to register who have not committed a sex crime in over 50 years. Fifty! Not since the Kennedy Administration. Why different rules for them when they write a bad check?
Not everyone who has to register is a Rapist or Child Molester. Why special rules regarding drug possession, theft or fraud for the young man who had an underage girlfriend decades ago? Why special rules regarding drug possession, theft or fraud for someone who spoke rudely to teenagers on a public bus (PC 647.6 “Annoy and Molest a Child under 18 – registerable sex offense)? Why?
Why is there no special provision for people convicted of prior theft? Burglary? Larceny? Fraud? With massive amounts of damage? Drug dealing? Why not?
The claim is that it keeps dangerous criminals locked up. So the only dangerous criminals are convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters and registered sex offenders? Seriously?
Of course, the nuclear bomb argument is to package this somehow into a benefit for… wait for it – the children. “Won’t someone pleeeeease think of the children”…. “Safe Schools”. Boooom.
I have opined previously that all you have to do is wrap a proposal in “for the children” or “against terror” and it is a slam dunk. Sprinkle in some “registered sex offenders” and rational thought goes out the window so fast your head will spin.
According to the proposal 25% of the savings somehow trickles down to the schools. I’ll believe it when I see it. Just like the CA Lottery? 65% goes to the Board of State and Community Corrections – aka the Prison Industrial Complex. For alternative programs, but again, I believe it when I see that. All this does is shift the majority of “savings”. Smoke and Mirrors, smoke and mirrors.
Is there a problem with this country’s absurd incarceration levels? No doubt. But using a flawed and inherently unjust approach to rectifying the problem is not the answer.
Now, this proposition, when (not if) it passes might (might!) indeed make a dent in the actual prison population.
But for sure it takes a bite out of the concept of Liberty and Justice for All. And that is too big a price to pay.
NO on 47!
Not many people are aware of the willy nilly nature of branding someone with a sex offender label. If you’ve seen the film Horrible Bosses one of the characters was listed as s ex offender for peeing in a playground in the middle of the night. Those people should not be labeled as sex offenders and there is a push to reform that area of the penal system as well.
This proposition is a step in the right direction despite your misgivings LeagleBeagle. I agree with Paul one of the next things that needs to be done is in fact to reform the 290 register list which includes many things like urinating in public, having consensual sex between a 18 year and a 16 year old as examples. But despite the very limited failing that you see, the initiative as a whole moves CA in the direction to end the funding of a system that favors law enforcement and incarceration. I for one as a retired police officer encourage everyone to vote yes on 47 as it is a necessary first step in defunding the criminal justice system that may solve problems short-term but does nothing to rehabilitate and prevent crime in the future.
The “very limited failing” that I see? Seriously?
I see no reason to introduce these people into this bill, which absent that would indeed be a step in the right direction.
I could totally see keeping the felony option open for people previously convicted of the charges this bill addresses – theft, fraud and drug possession. Not a problem. But this incessant piling on is getting old.
This will be challenged on an Ex Post Facto and Equal Opportunity basis, as well it should be.
Just keep in mind that the last two propositions (83 in 2006 and 35 in 2012), although passed with over 70% of the vote, have been (at least partially) stayed or invalidated and are still working their way through the high court system in the complete fustercluck that they are.
The time where you can use these people as a whipping boy for anything and everything is over. It is unproductive, unamerican and will eventually backfire.
NO on 47. I will be front and center to vote YES when they fix this Proposition.
Fixing this registry is another issue for another day.
Diane & Paul,
What do think of Santa Ana’s Measure BB illegally using the Santa Ana City logo on their campaign literature – including on the mailing envelope? – approaches mail fraud IMO. Is this the type of illegal activity we can look forward to by the pot shops if BB or CC pass?
Measure BB is the City of Santa Ana’s answer to measure CC. It was created and written by the city council so I think it is ok for them to use the logo.
No it is not okay – it is a self interested campaign – it is illegal Lucas.
Nutty theory Skally! You gonna bring it up at Council?
The campaign is a separate entity from the City – hell, pot shop operators can contribute (as individuals).
There is no council meeting before the election.
meh wont be the first time
Vern – I’ll bet you a lunch at our favorite hole-in-the-wall SA Mex restaurant that both Measures BB and CC fail.
That is the goal of BB
You still owe me from 2008 dude, when you were sure old McCain would beat Obama.
But if I have lunch with you, I’ll have to work hard to put out of my head a lot of unpleasant things you’ve written over the years. (You’ll probably say the same about me.)
Knowing both of you, lunch would be interesting….