I recommend smartvoter.org for research. It's pretty good so far.
Prop 66:
Quote:
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.
|
There's a big confusion over the Three Strikes Law. I did a speech on it awhile back and got a lot of details, first the first two crimes must be relatively violent... stealing DVDs won't count unless its over $500 or something. And the three strikes law is ONLY AN OPTION OF THE JUDGE AND JURY. It is not forced.
Something like... 90% of the people sentenced 25 years to life by the three strikes law have already served 10 years in prison. If someone who served 10 years in prison is still committing crimes, I don't want them back in society for at least 25 more until they're weak and frail. I think California needs a big reform in the jails along the lines of crushing the jail guard union that is stealing so much money and inproving reform success in jail.
I think there are a lot of people who may have been shafted by the Three Strikes Law, but I still think as it is, it does a good job and the ends justify the means. Pehaps more public awareness would get more jurys to understand the reason for it. The second strike for instance, has its sentence doubled... not many people know that.
I like how this prop tries to protect the children and sexual predators. I know rape and incest destroys peoples lives, but it's an emotional appeal and not a logical one. Sex offerenders on average get longer sentences then second degree murders, talk about destroying someone's life.
Average Term for 1999 in california: Second Degree Murger - 16.4, Rape - 26.3, Sodomy-16.8 Lewd Act with Child-12.7, Oral Copulation-27.7.
Does anyone else find this downright alarming?!? Damn emotional laws and judgements and props, not rational.
I will vote no on prop 66.
http://smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/66/
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/ publications/misc/cinc/4system.pdf