Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Proposition 66 in California
| User | Post |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1615/5458 |
Arnie is an odd governor. Kind of a half-Republican on social issues, but economically...He puts Bushy to shame 
Works for Cali, I guess. Although that is a state that would probably benefit from some good ol' industry nationalization. |
Kefka
Posts: 2341/3392 |
Originally posted by Colin
*edits Kefka's absurdly large font*
Eh, they'll end up changing it in a few years anyways. I'm surprised since I thought with California going to Kerry, there might have been a little shift in thought...
Well, Cali always goes to democrats... but really, there's only shift in thought when a governor changes, or power within a legislature shifts. The governor is a staunch Republican, who, as you know, helped contribute to all the blatant lies in the ads against Prop 66. These ads were probably the #1 reason why it didn't pass, because most Californians aren't smart enough to ignore the propaganda and go find out about the prop for themselves. Thus, 53% of the state was under the perception that this prop was meant to release mass murderers from prison immediately and let them roam on the streets. |
windwaker
Posts: 198/1797 |
Originally posted by Legion
Crime and punishment should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis only.
I agree; all cases are different, and must be looked at differently. Crimes aren't as black and white as some would hope. |
Colin
Posts: 4940/11302 |
*edits Kefka's absurdly large font*
Eh, they'll end up changing it in a few years anyways. I'm surprised since I thought with California going to Kerry, there might have been a little shift in thought... |
Kefka
Posts: 2337/3392 |
Originally posted by Rebecca Daise
Since when was stealing bread, writing bounced checks and stealing a video tape a felony?
For the first one, ever since America was founded.
For the second one, ever since the banking system started getting bounced checks.
For the third one, ever since video tapes were in existence.
EDIT:
BAD NEWS!
Proposition 66 did not pass 
It lost the vote, 46.6% to 53.4%
So, the three strikes law stays the same in Cali... it's all because of those ridiculously misleading ads
EDIT2:
OTHER NEWS! (but not on Prop 66)
Proposition 1A: Local Gov't Revenues
YES (83.6%)
Proposition 59: Public Records
YES (83.1%)
Proposition 60: Party Rights
YES (67.3%)
Proposition 60A: Surplus Property
YES (72.8%)
Proposition 61: Hospital Grants
YES (58.1%)
Proposition 62: Open Primary
NO (54.3%)
Prop 63: Mental Health Services
YES (53.4%)
Prop 64: Business Laws
YES (58.9%)
Prop 65: Local Government Funds
NO (62.5%)
Prop 66: 3 Strikes Amendment
NO (53.4%)
Prop 67: Medical Services Funds
NO (72.0%)
Prop 68: Gambling Expansion
NO (83.7%)
Prop 69: DNA Samples
YES (61.8%)
Prop 70: Tribal Gaming
NO (76.1%)
Prop 71: Stem Cell Research
NO (91.2%)
Heh, just kidding on that one
YES (59.1%)
Prop 72: Health Care Coverage
NO (50.9%) <---damn, oh so close to getting it passed!
That's my state for ya It's pretty whack, eh? We add so many new laws every year! |
DahrkDaiz
Posts: 372/885 |
Originally posted by hhallahh
But, according to the California Department of Corrections, almost 65% of those serving second and third strike sentences were convicted of nonviolent, petty offenses such as writing a bad check, stealing a videotape, loaf of bread or pack of T-shirts.
Yea, that's pretty stupid. (Although the loaf of bread line... how clich
Legion
Posts: 2757/5657 |
Crime and punishment should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis only. |
Yoshi Dude
Posts: 1666/3271 |
I'm not sure.. I mean if you weaken the three strikes law, then many serious drug related offenses wouldn't apply. The reason why it's so strict now is so that we don't have to wait until people get hurt three times. It does seem harsh, but it's hard to defend someone who continously does crimes. |
Dracoon
Posts: 1670/3727 |
It has a flaw or two here and there, but it is much better than what we have now.
Of course, in my opinion it has a flaw or two, I don't know about Californian law, so I can't really argue anything without looking like an idiot. But as I can see, 66 is much better than the three strike system... |
Kefka
Posts: 2333/3392 |
As a sidenote, that John Bunyard dude looks like a fucktard |
hhallahh
Posts: 433/607 |
But, according to the California Department of Corrections, almost 65% of those serving second and third strike sentences were convicted of nonviolent, petty offenses such as writing a bad check, stealing a videotape, loaf of bread or pack of T-shirts.
Yea, that's pretty stupid. (Although the loaf of bread line... how clich |
Colin
Posts: 4896/11302 |
I think the three-strike rule (in California, NOT on the board or anything) is ludicrous. Yes, if you've committed three *serious* crimes, then you obviously haven't learned your lesson; but to be caught on a weak felony charge and get dumped in prison with a life sentence (or thereabouts - isn't it 20 to life?)... The ends should justify the means, and they don't in that system. So yes to Prop 66.  |
Kefka
Posts: 2330/3392 |
Well, first off, here's something you should know about California prior to doing this little survey/"debate"...
California currently holds a "three strike system" for criminals. If a person commits any felony (aka crime), is released from jail, and commits any other felony, regardless of what it is, and whether it is a more serious crime or a less serious one, the jail sentence will then be longer than the first crime... and if a third felony is done (again, its severity holds no relevance), it is a life sentence.
Proposition 66 suggests... well, I will give you all the info on it from a non-biased source... (smartvoter.org)
Should the "Three Strikes" law be limited to violent and/or serious felonies? Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
Summary Prepared by Attorney General :
-Amends "Three Strikes" law to require increased sentences only when current conviction is for specified violent and/or serious felony.
-Redefines violent and serious felonies. Only prior convictions for specified violent and/or serious felonies, brought and tried separately, would qualify for second and third "strike" sentence increases.
-Allows conditional re-sentencing of persons with sentences increased under "Three Strikes" law if previous sentencing offenses, resulting in the currently charged felony/felonies, would no longer qualify as violent and/or serious felonies.
-Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:
Over the long run, net state savings of up to several hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system; local jail and court-related costs of potentially more than ten million dollars annually.
Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote of this measure means:
The current "Three Strikes" sentencing law would be amended to require that a second and third strike offense be a serious or violent felony, instead of any felony, in order for the longer sentences required under Three Strikes to apply. The state would be required to resentence "third strikers" whose third strike was nonviolent and nonserious. In addition, prison sentences for specified sex offenses against children would be lengthened.
A NO vote of this measure means:
Current sentencing law would remain in effect, requiring offenders with one or more prior convictions for serious or violent felonies to receive longer sentences for the conviction of any new felony (not just a serious or violent felony). In addition, prison sentences for certain sex offenses against children would remain unchanged.
Official Sources of Information
Official WWW Site
Full Text (pdf)
Impartial Analysis [MY NOTE: if there is such a thing |
|
|
