"Three
Strikes Law" not flawed; vote no
After
scanning through the Official Voter Information
Guide on Proposition 66, it became increasingly
clear that the only argument in favor
of Prop. 66 was this, in big bold capital
letters: "voting yes on proposition
66 will restore three strikes to its promise
and the original intent of voters."
The argument makes it clear within the
first two paragraphs that 10 years ago
voters were asked to pass tougher sentences
for repeat violent criminals. It then
points out a flaw of deciding to vote
on the three strikes law, which is this:
three strikes also locks up nonviolent,
petty offenders for life. Cue the bold
capital letters which try to make voters
believe that what hasn’t happened
in 10 years will happen if you say yes
this time.
Needless
to say, I am strongly against the Three
Strikes law. Another argument for why
people should vote yes is the assumption
that this proposition will save taxpayers
"billions of dollars" over the
next decade and it will protect our children.
To me, these are empty promises. How can
Prop. 66 save tax money? It is going to
cost taxpayers millions to return inmates
to county jails for re-sentencing and
release, and billions more just to deal
with the cost of higher crime and violence.
Also, this conditional re-sentencing of
persons under the "Three Strikes"
law would no longer qualify as serious
or violent felonies.
As
the California District Attorneys Association
estimates, Prop. 66 will release as many
as 26,000 convicted felons from California
prisons and return them to counties for
re-sentencing. And as hard as it is to
believe, these felons are not petty criminals,
they are dangerous criminals with long
histories of serious and violent crimes.
If this proposition is approved, these
dangerous minds will be released or have
their sentences dramatically reduced.
This
law is redefining serious and violent
felonies, but at the same time only prior
convictions for specified violent or serious
felonies, brought and tried separately,
would qualify for second and third strike
sentence increases. If this proposition
passes, arson, residential burglary, attempted
burglary, criminal threats, felony gang
crimes and felonies like drunk driving
will no longer be considered strikes.
Imagine
an innocent person such as yourself or
a family member being seriously hurt or
killed in a drunk driving accident, and
the person who did it getting off with
no strike. Well, I’m sorry, but
that boils my blood. Another example is
the case of Kenneth Parnell, the notorious
child molester who kidnapped young Steven
Staynore and sexually assaulted him for
seven years.
He
was recently convicted of trying to buy
a four-year-old boy for $500. And with
Proposition 66, instead of serving 25
years to life for his crimes against these
children, Parnell will be set free within
weeks.
It
is easy to see that Proposition 66 is
not going to help anyone but the criminals.
Even if you, like me, believe that the
"Three Strikes" law should be
modified, Proposition 66 is not the answer.
Please help keep the crime rate down and
innocent people safe. Vote "no"
on Prop. 66.
Laura
Baker is a student at CSULB.
