CA's Criminal Justice Propositions: Mixed Results

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In addition to the disappointing outcome of California's Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, the state's voters made mistakes in rejecting Proposition 5, which would have shifted the state's response to drug crimes from incarceration to treatment, and approving Proposition 9, which purports to give new "rights" to crime victims.

It is particularly troubling that MADD aggressively lobbied voters to reject proposition 5 even though it had nothing to do with drunk driving, and even though an organization that wants to prevent impaired driving should be supportive of increased funding for treatment programs. This is the latest example of how MADD, having accomplished its objective of raising awareness of drunk driving and toughening drunk driving penalties around the country, has outlived its usefulness and now seeks to perpetuate itself by intruding into criminal justice issues that are none of its concern.

[more ...]

A brighter result in California voting is the rejection of Proposition 6. The proposition would have lavished money on law enforcement agencies while increasing penalties for certain crimes and requiring "satellite tracking of sex offenders and other former state prison inmates." Despite California's powerful prison-industrial complex, which gives knee-jerk support to any proposal that might increase the population of the state's dysfunctional, overcrowded prison system, the proposition lost by a 70-30 margin.

< The Emerged Democratic Majority | Obama's Win and Judges >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CA's Criminal Justice Propositions: Mixed Results | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

On Prop 9 .. . Justice and Revenge ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by narius on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST

are just words.

Anything that keeps violent criminals lock up longer is a GOOD THING in my books.

Who is to say locking up some violent murderer for 25 years is "more just" than 35 years? It is an arbitrary number in both cases.

And I don't see why it is unreasonable for the decision-makers to see how the crime (and i presume violent in these cases) affect the people being hurt.

No one is arguing the victims are going to give detached, unemotion speeches. The point is the judge and the parole should see them more than just dry descriptions on a piece of paper.

Prop 9 is NOT letting victims to make the decisions. It is merely let them have more opportunities to talk about how the crime affected their lives. The decision-makers are still impartial.

The people in CA have spoken. The message is clear. There is no reason to coddle up to violent criminals.

Gay & Lesbian Times supported Prop 9. (none / 0) (#1)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST

Please vote "yes" on Proposition 9, which increases victims' rights in the criminal justice system and reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled. It also establishes victim safety as a consideration in determining bail or release on parole

So? (none / 0) (#2)
by TChris on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:37:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: So, a point of information on your topic. (none / 0) (#15)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST

It's interesting, to me anyway.
Apparently G&L's went to the polls yesterday to try to stop Prop 8 from victimizing them regarding marriage, and, while they were there, apparently, they further identified with other victims - victims of crime - and voted to support them.
I suppose the the thought that they have been/might be victims of crime due to their sexual orientation also encouraged them to support Prop 9.
You may not find it interesting, as is your right, but the difference in yours and their stances on this issue is an interesting dichotomy among liberals, imo.

[ Parent ]

MADD.... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST

can't stand 'em...Mothers for Tyranny is what they should call themselves...or maybe "Big Mother".

An organization founded for a noble cause, raising awareness about the risks and tragedy of drunk driving, has become just another power hungry "lock 'em up" police state lobby.

Furthermore (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by eric on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST

they have morphed into a modern day temperance society. .08 isn't enough for them, next, they will ask for .05.

What they really want, though, is to stop people from drinking altogether.

[ Parent ]

: I wish they'd be honest... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST

about their tyrannical intentions, I think they've got a lot of people fooled as to what their goals are.
Good luck with that temperance movement "Big Mother", it worked so well the first go round, as the current drug war is working so well:)

[ Parent ]

Mothers unhinged (none / 0) (#4)
by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:52:47 PM EST

by tragedy is another way of putting it.

There's a righteous crusader born every minute.

[ Parent ]

And we've got the crappy... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:58:59 PM EST

federal and state laws from coast to coast to prove it.

Rule of Thumb...laws named after specific victims of a tragic crime or event tend to be the absolute worst.

[ Parent ]

: As are groups... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST

...with initials that spell out "cute" things--like MADD and DARE.

[ Parent ]
: They serve (none / 0) (#11)
by jondee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:40:23 PM EST

the function of providing so-called "closure" to victims and provide unlimited grandstanding and flog-your-opponents oppurtunties for do-nothing, think-nothing pols.
I dont know how we get around the perrennial dynamic of people seeking redress through the state, though. It's sorta the nature of the beast.

[ Parent ]

A direct consequence (none / 0) (#9)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:25:32 PM EST

In addition to the disappointing outcome of California's Proposition 8, banning gay marriage

This is a direct consequence of the California Supreme Court deciding that the definition of marriage was a constitutional rather than a legislative issue. Personally, I feel that the definition of marriage is an issue for a legislature accountable to voters to decide.

I think.... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST

the definition of marriage is for each individual, and each couple, to decide.

Nobody owns the word.

[ Parent ]

That is certainly true on one level (none / 0) (#14)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:34:34 PM EST

If you or I want to we are quite free do call an association of one person, two goldfish, and three bars of soap a "marriage." We are all still free to do that, even in California. This was only about what the state of california recognizes as marriage.

[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0) (#16)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:06:10 PM EST

Personally, I feel that the definition of marriage is an issue for a legislature accountable to voters to decide.

So, how do you feel about the Governator vetoing such a bill from the CA Legistlature?

[ Parent ]

That the process (none / 0) (#17)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM EST

Thats all part of the process.

[ Parent ]

Except that the Governator (none / 0) (#18)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:43:11 PM EST

justified his veto by saying the issue should be left to the courts, which result then became the justification for Prop 8 by its' sponsors.

[ Parent ]

: So what? (none / 0) (#19)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:33:06 AM EST

The governor is responsible to the voters. His actions matter more than BS rhetoric.

[ Parent ]

I don't agree with Chris on some things (none / 0) (#13)
by hairspray on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST

but he was correct when he said that parole hearing were not the place for the victims family (all 25 of them if wanted) to shout out their need for revenge. This is going back to biblical times where the victims family had the right to extract a pound of flesh from the criminal. As a civil society we have moved beyond that and the state legislates appropriate penalties. Victim's rights are simply a forum for grieving and revenge.