How proposition 6 lost

Well, I actually don’t know.

In all honesty, the no on prop 6 campaign had a lot more money and was backed by almost every county police department. The no on 6 campaign had more campaign experience (such as passing Jessica’s Law and the three strikes and your out law). Ultimately, thought, these advantages did not matter enough to pass the proposition.

When looking at the La Times election results map, the entire states is orange. This means that the majority of every single county in California voted No on proposition 6.

What does this mean? It means that nothing will change for police and law enforcement officers. It means that money will not be taken from other programs to fund what prop 6 anticipated. Ultimately, it prevents more money from targeting some people over others, as well as squeezing out money that California does not have anyway.

The No on 6 campaign did not hold the rallies that the Yes on 6 had. They did not give the many speeches across California the Yes on 6 were able to do, and ultimately, it came down to smaller groups, like Homeboy Industries and father Gregory Boyle.

Undoubtedly, the radio commercials that intensified two weeks before the election clearly stated the nature of the proposition, but it’s interesting to note that the same could be said about the Yes on 6 campaign.

Because there are not, still, any real reports on this low-key proposition (in comparison to others, at least) it is my assumption that this was due to the fact that commercials and the proposition itself had the 1 billion dollar tag attached that scared many from voting in favor. The economic hardship that hit California ultimately contributed to the loss of prop 6.

I could not be more pleased with the voters of California, in terms of this proposition, and the rightful decision that was made.

Why No on 6 campaign is deceptive.... and smart

No Proposition 6 has invested in a lot (of the little) money it has on radio ads attacking proposition 6 as a last push before the election.
To hear the ad, please visit this site: http://www.votenoprop6.com/video/No69_1_BudgetCrisis.mp3

Basically the thirty second ad, which is being played across California, plays on the very brittle economic sentiment widespread in California right now. The economic failures in the U.S. have been no more evident than in California, who has, and is, experiencing a very unstable moment.

Both campaigns are very aware of the fact that the proposition would target people of color in specific areas of the country. It would seem as though the No on 6 campaign could easily negatively frame this proposition as an unjust measure that would target some over others, thus, unfairly creating a law that contradicted a democratic principle of being equal under the law. However, instead of making this an issue about race and poverty, instead the ad and the campaign are banking on the economy. Genius!

Instead of making this a campaign of social inequality, which does not ring well with everyone, the No on 6 campaign can safely tap into the issue of the economy. The ad states that the proposition would “Spend billions on tax payers dollars more a year,” which is not true. The proposition would definitely increase funding for prevention, intervention and police staffing, in addition to funding unforeseeable costs (such as a larger number of incarceration rates), but not by the many billions stated here.

The world “billion” was used three times, that is, once every ten seconds. Indeed, they distort the truth a couple times, however, the pitch is marvelous and the twisted truth becomes secondary to an oblivious audience. Though they should quickly dispel the myth that California is on the brink of chaos, by utilizing the economic crisis (due to the fact that it is the number one issue this presidential election), the ads should do quite well.

How Prop 6 can win

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, Proposition 6 has not received as much attention as other proposition. Though the proposition would mean significant changes, it has not received much attention. As much as I have searched, I have not found polls predicting the outcome of prop 6.

What I did find were radio campaign ads! The most effective way of reaching voters would be to invest heavily on TV ads, unfortunately, neither side has that kind of money, nor the same amount of support as other campaigns.

The biggest beneficiaries of the prop would be the police department, who would be heavily funded to enforce new tasks. Therefore, it is not surprising that they launched a heavy radio campaign in favor of the Safe Neighborhood Act.

To hear the ad, please visit: http://www.lapd.com/news/pr/lappl_launces_radio_ad_campaign_in_support_of_proposition_6/

Once, there, scroll down, and right beneath the subtitle “TRANSCRIPT OF RADIO AD LAPPL, the audio strip appears. Click on it!
First of all, the voice in the audio is very intimidating and authoritative. The sound of the ad is very persuasive and does instill a little bit of fear. This ad sells, and it basically outlines pretty good-sounding measures that will, according to the ad, “increase safety” and adapt “more effective and accountable intervention programs.”

What was also effective about this proposition is that it omitted the fact that fourteen year olds would be convicted as adults in certain felonies. This, of course, is due to the fact that incarcerating youth is not viewed as a favorable and progressive way of running California. This would not their best selling point, and it would be foolish for them to inculcate that image in a thirty second ad without the time to justify this facet of the prop.

What I also notice, is that not even the campaign itself addresses this part of the proposition. The modestobee.com website posted a video of a rally the yes on 6 campaign had: http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/457130.html
Not even at their rallies is this issue addressed. Instead, some of the rally speakers are very clever and again attempt to scare the audience into voting for this proposition. An example of this is when Stanislaus County district Attorney, Birgit Fladager states that “gang crime continues to skyrocket in California.” This is clearly an exaggeration of crime in California. Again, crime rate is not at an unprecedented level in history, but the thought of it sure is effective for the passage of the Act.

In another example, in this same video, is Stanislaus County Chief Probation Officer Jerry Powers, who states: that the registered gang member sin San Diego is “a statistic that should scare the hell out of you.” Obviously, this was intended to “show” that California had no idea of what it is doing to combat crime.

Without the privilege of analyzing data on the effectiveness of the ad and the rally message, it appears as though this proposition will pass if it is able to spread enough fear and doubt about the current criminal laws. With the current budget crisis, informed voters at lease, will not be very willing to deprive other social services of money. However, by effectively framing the prop, it could pass. If you do not believe me, think back to the little bill our president passed after the attacks in 2001, and think why it was able to overwhelmingly pass in Congress.

What I think would occur if this proposition is passed

Let’s get specific on proposition 6. How exactly would proposition reduce gang-related crime? The major changes the proposition will have on the criminal justice system? Some of these modifications I have already discussed in detail, such as criminal background checks for public housing residents, eliminating bail for undocumented persons and try youth as young as 14 in an adult court for certain crimes.

What proposition 6 will also induce “gang injunction procedures” which gives law enforcement the right to “bring lawsuits against members of street gangs” or to charge someone before they actually commit a crime in order to prevent the crime from happening. So if someone if is identified as a gang member, they could be held responsible for a crime that actually did not occur This is really making me laugh right now, it shouldn’t because it is a very harmful policy that grants law enforcement a significant amount of power.

It makes sense that if someone is already identified as a gang member, then people might support this facet of the proposition. However, California’s databases are not accurate and do not document gang members in California. It is so bad that Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated that “this database cannot and should not be used, in California or elsewhere, to decide whether or not a person is dangerous or should be detained” (San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.votenoprop6.com/nam_082108.html).

The proposition requires the modification of these databases, though defining a persona s a gang member could be dangerous and inaccurate. Since sentencing would be harsher for known gang members, many who are labeled as such, but no longer affiliate as a member could be caught in a gang injunction or tried harsher than the law finds fair.

It is interesting to note that this database would be updated by requiring gang members themselves to register as such. I do not believe this is very likely, and it seems pretty ridiculous to expect this to actually take place. Basically, the data bases wouldn’t change too much, and California law enforcement would operate in a very interesting way.

What I have not seen discussed, is the problems that will arise between police officers and targeted communities. The prop clearly aims to single out ethnic minority youth in inner cities. A harsh and possibly unfair attack on individuals would not go by well, I assume of course. The solution of the proposition almost seeks to hunt down and lock up gang members (and non-gang members) in such a way that would inevitably create animosity between the two societies.

California needs to address crime, just not in a way that will possibly endanger others in the process. To further instigate a real shitty relationship between officers and perceived gang members is not a very intelligent way of preventing gang violence. To alienate and hunt a people does not make them very happy, and does not prevent them from further committing crimes (the discrimination just pisses them off).

California General Election
Prop 6 POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop6-analysis.htm

Chart and video of California financial deficit

In order to better understand the way Califonia spends money, the chart below breaks down where money has gone and will go this year.

Allocation of funds in California





Protecting California Taxpayers
Assembly Republicans Are Fighting
For A Responsible State Budget



UCLA Professor Daniel J.B. Mitchell traces California’s financial deficit back to the 1970s. Explains why the terminology is off and misleads citizens into believing the budget has been fine. States (in 2006) that California needs to fix its structural deficit, which means that economic growth alone would not fix the economic situation (must REDUCE spending and RAISE taxes).

California Budget Crisis, and why it is significant to proposition 6

California is in a budget crisis. A couple years ago California faced a rough economic patch with the fail of the dot.com. The economic hardships were “fixed” by borrowing and cutting social programs, which have only extended with the rise of foreclosed homes.

California deficit is somewhere between $16 billion and $18 billion. Money that California does not have. In fact, California Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to the Treasurer Secretary, Henry Paulsen, asks for $7 billion to meet the state needs for this month.

In the October 2nd letter, the Governor stated that
“The credit crisis has frozen investment and commerce, forcing businesses and families to stop purchasing goods and services. This has resulted in tens of thousands of lost jobs and billions of dollars in lost tax revenue to the state.”

California is already struggling to meet the responsibilities it already has, and proposition 6 (and 9) would further drown California its state debt. The issue is not solely that California has a debt, but also that on October 2, 2008 (the date of the letter), California did not have enough money to fund the services it already has in place.

Proposition 6 does not raise taxes, instead, money needed will be taken from the state’s general fund. This money would otherwise fun schools and social services that are financially struggling as of right now.

This election will decide on some very important propositions that may further drive California into a greater financial crisis. If voters choose to believe that the Safe Neighborhood Act will truly reduce gang related crimes, then voters must also analyze the significance of this proposition (as well as others, of course) to California’s financial crisis.

This may seem as a crude alternative, but it is also a very practical one. The question becomes, is this what California needs right now? Is this the best way to handle the current crisis? Now, this proposition becomes an issue of crime as well as an issue of fiscal responsibility.


CBS Evening News: On California Financial Crisis


Watch CBS Videos Online

"With California expecting to run out of cash by Oct. 28th, Gov. Schwarzenegger has sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson explaining that the state may need $7 billion bailout. Ben Tracy reports."



Indy Bay January 5, 2008
California prepares massive cuts in response to budget crisis and economic woes
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/05/18470174.php

Tracy Unified School District
http://www.tracy.k12.ca.us/cabudgetcrisis.htm

Office of the Governor
Press Release
Governor Schwarzenegger Sends Letter to U.S. Department of Treasury Regarding the National Financial Crisis’ Effect on California and Other States
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/10734/

Why Proposition 6 and 9 are linked

I do not wish to dwell too long on proposition 9 since it is not specifically the informational intent of this blog. However, it is evident that both propositions are quite similar in that they intend to keep prisoners in jail as long as possible.

Proposition 6 aims to extend the sentence for crimes such as adding five years for gang recruitment of minors and considering more violent crimes eligible for life in prison. Proposition 9 eliminates early release for prisoners, especially in county jails where this is more prominent. Jail time would also increase by allowing victims and the family of victims to participate in bail, sentencing and parole. Additionally, the safety of the victim would be considered in releasing the convicted person. Therefore, even though a person might have served their sentence, release would not certain.

Victims are entitled to guidance and participation in the judicial process. Victims are also entitled to restitution, as the prop proposes. However, though victims are given a greater role, the proposition extends their participation and reduces the defense of the convicted person. Victims have right, but perpetrators do so as well.

The following video claims that proposition 9 simply seeks to grant victims the same rights as the person convicted of the crime.



In the video, Harriet Salarno of Crime Victims United, claims that this proposition gives victims the same rights as perpetrators. While this proposition does give victims more rights, it gives them such rights that their unfair participation may infringe on the proper defense of the perpetrator.

Not only will their defense be restricted, but their parole hearings would be reduced and further apart. This proposition would take away the right of parolees to legal council which gives paroles a chance in a legal setting. Additionally, crime victims would have the constitutional right to not disclose confidential records to the defendant’s case and refuse to testify or provide evidence before the trial to the defendant’s case.

In all these changes, the “playing ground” as Salarno calls it, is not equal and does not grant both sides a fair way of pleading for their case. Proposition 9, in this case, does give victims more rights, but does not make the situation a more fair one.

Victims' Rights and Protection Act of 2008

Everyday I research what is being said about proposition 6 in an effort to gain a grasp of what the major issues with this proposition are. What I noticed is that often, when proposition 6 is discusses, so is proposition 9. This makes sense since proposition 9 addresses victims rights from crimes as well as the early release of inmates.

Since this proposition also aims to make changes in the criminal justice system, I thought further understanding this bill would be appropriate.

In 1982 when California approved proposition 8. Proposition 8 is known as the Victims’ Bill of Rights which contains much of what California currently abides by. Because of Prop 8, victims are notified, are allowed to attend sentencing and parole hearings. Victims currently have the right to obtain a “judicial order of protection from harassment by a criminal defendant.”

The following are the modifications proposition 9 will tackle.
Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.
(Taken directly from the California General Election website)

Under proposition 9, convicted criminals would be required to fulfill jail time without early release. While this does not usually occur in state prisons, it is not uncommon in county jails. Proposition 9 would thus require more money for the construction of county jails.

The costs are not yet determined, however, since prisoners would not be released early, and because of the extended role of victims, significant increased spending is expected.

The proposition also limits parole hearings by extending the time between hearing from one and five years to three and fifteen years. The proposition also further extends the participation of victims in all steps of the parts of the judicial process. So while victims and their family would be given allotted more participation in parole hearings, inmates would be limited to two persons who could testify on their behalf.

Center of Governmental Studies info video on Prop 9



Infor from California General Election
Official Voter Information
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop9-analysis.htm

Are prisons the solution? examining why crimes happen

A very important component of the proposition, states that anyone convicted of certain crimes will be serve longer time in prison (as stated in my earlier posts). This is done in order to keep crime away from the streets and away from threatening the safety of others.

It is interesting to see, though that those who are committing crimes (or at least being convicted for it at higher rates) are less educated black males.

The fact that black males are more likely to be in prison. In 1993, one in 50 men in the workforce were imprisoned, compared to one in every eleven black men I the workforce were imprisoned (p.26). Education too is a factor for crime, “a disproportionate number of men in prison are high school dropouts.” In fact, in 1991 the Survey of State Prison Inmates reported that of those in prison, two-thirds had not gradated.

And although imprisonment of all convicted criminals has increased, evidence shows that simply isolating criminals does not reduce crime. Those who engage in unlawful activities are not random mistakes of society. Crimes are heavily led by social circumstances that affect some groups more than others in our country.


“In the past two decades or so, more and more American men, particularly the young, the less educated and blacks, have been involved in crime, despite an increased risk of imprisonment” (p.2).


If the prison rate has increased, and undocumented citizens do not increase the rate in crème (as written in an earlier post), then why are crime rates still high? The fact is that incarcerating convicted people does not fix the issues that contribute to crime.

There are trends in society that correlate with crime, which I took and pasted below.


“First, the demographics of the criminal population show that those who commit crimes consist disproportionately of persons with low legitimate earnings prospects- the young, the less educated, persons with low test scores, and so on” (p. 10).

“Second, joblessness seems associated with greater crime (Chiricos, 1987; Free- man, 1983, 1995). For example, areas with high unemployment tend to have high crime rates”

“Third, greater inequality is associated with higher rates of crime (Chiricos, 1987; Freeman, 1983, 1995). Even homicide rates are correlated with measures of inequality across cities (Land, McCall and Cohen, 1990). In the most comprehen- sive study, Lee (1993) found a substantive positive relation between levels of earn- ings inequality and crime rates across metropolitan areas in 1970 and 1980.”

The expansion of prison does not answer the real issues that occur and influence crime. I hate to discredit the proposition in this respect because the safety of victims and community members is important. However, there seems to be a real misunderstanding of known information about the ineffectiveness of prisons, which do not “fix” people and the real reasons these issues arise in the first place.


Freeman, Richard. "Why Do So Many Young American Men Commit Crimes and What Might We Do About It?." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(1996): 25-42.

Because the other kinds of crime don’t affect people

Campaigns in general are very expensive. A lot of money is needed in order to sell your product and usually those who support your cause will be nice enough to share their wealth.

This past December Billionaire Henry Nicholas donated $1 Million in favor of the Safe Neighborhood Act. His large donation, however, is tainted by the fact that he was indicted this summer on three accounts.

Nicholas was not accused of gang violence or recruitment, however he was indicted on fraud, drug and conspiracy charges.

Often, when unfavorable charges such as these arise, recipients of the money apologize and return the money. To my surprise, this did not occur. Instead Senator Runner said that “the crimes that he's accused of are not the kinds of things we're dealing with."

True, the prop is specific with who it aims to target, however, this does not mean that other crimes are acceptible and should be condoned because they are committed off the streets and in upscale social settings.

Nicholas was indicted on a drug account, including keeping sited for cocaine distribution. This apparently did not bother Runner. Clearly these crimes do not affect others and do not contribute to other forms of crime. It is obvious that Runner believes that as long as the cocaine is used and distributed from away from the streets, it is not as significant and impactful as it otherwise would be.


It appears as though this proposition will only reduce crime by targeting certain demographics and will not reduce crime overall. I do not think this is a conspiracy or maliciously done, but in this respect, it is as if unless a crime is gang-related, it does not affect the lives of others.


Check more on this at
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-crime16-2008oct16,0,6239851.story

Rothfeld, Michael. "Indicted donor's $1 million to Prop. 6 campaign causes sparks." Los Angeles Times October 16, 2008:

We're on the path to hell

I opened a file on the Safe Neighborhood Act entitled Who is in Our State Prisons? Basically, what they do is provide information about which crimes are committed and data on the prison rate. I have a theory.

The last section is what I found interesting. A pie graph breaking down illegal alien imprisonment shows how California has the most incarcerated illegal people (I would have pasted the graph here but the formatting does not allow me to do so, http://www.safeneighborhoodsact.com/Portals/0/assets/docs/WhoIsInOurStatePrisons-2008.08.19.pdf)

This is misleading and makes it as if illegal aliens were the criminals in the state. As I wrote before, this is simply not true and attacking crime in this manner is not a way of reducing the rate of crime.

For information regarding crime of illegal persons, please visit theUnited States Government Accountability Office website at http://www.gao.gov/index.html

A specific article on this issue is
Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-646R

I feel bad picking apart everything about proposition 6, but I should be convinced before I accept their word for it, right?

What I absolutely loved, though, was part of the closing statement in the Safe Neighborhood Act document I opened that read: "Many people who advocate more offender education and fewer prison cells are, like the path to hell, driven by good intentions."

In how much DANGER are we?

The Safe Neighborhood Act exists because crime exists in California, this is true. California is by no means a safe place for everyone, but California is also a very large place with a large population, often living in large urban cities. So yeah, things get complicated and crime definitely exists. However, to say that California is a very dangerous place or that things are getting worse is by no means an accurate depiction of the changes in California crimes.

I do not want to simply point to the Safe Neighborhood Act, because the idea that California is full of failed crime prevention attempts appears to be a very common conception of California government.

Indeed, policies such as the Three Strikes Act have been ineffective; policies architected by some of the same authors of the Safe Neighborhood Act also contribute to the notion that crime is uncontrollable because of ineffective policy (though this act really didn’t contribute to crime reduction). In reality, though, California has significantly reduced its crime rate and is not at a cataclysmic point in its history.

The crime rate in California has been monitored for the last 56 years. Though the crime rate is significantly lower than it was then, California experienced a huge increase in both property and violent crime rate before it dropped. “The violent crime rate was on a general increase from 1983 to 1992, when it peaked at 1,103.9. Since then, the rate has seen annual decreases, dropping a total of 53.0 percent.”

The crime rate for 2006 further shows the significant drop to a rate of 518.4 per every 100,000 population. More recent years, however, show that California property crime rate has increased by 13 percent, while violent crime rate had decreased by 7.8 percent.

Now, the fight against crime is by no means over by virtue of the crime reduction in California, however, acknowledgement could be appropriate. The later ‘90s really decreased crime; this is not to say that it was all correctly done. Prisons are currently overcrowded and require an immense amount of money to maintain. Additionally, imprisonment is not an indicator of a healthy society. Also, the end of the decade saw an increase in especially property crime that took a significant setback to the “progress” made. Crime reduced since the ‘80s, but the action of imprisoning did not fix future setbacks.

Certainly, prevention programs and investmenting in schools does not increase crime. Simply overcrowding jails or building more to accommodate inmates does not prevent future crimes. This becomes a burden on society, and an injustice to those who have not been properly met by society and are vulnerable to become engaged in unlawful criminal activities.

In no way do I believe that violent are okay in society. By no means do I believe that this issue should not be addressed because crime is not as alarming as it once was. Contrary to this, prevention and intervention programs are essential to further reduce harm and prevent people from falling into a situation where criminal activities become an outlet.

Crimes exist and they are unfortunate to those who become victims and to those who for a number of reasons engage in crime, however, California is not a failed policy case study (at least everything). Policies should not scare voters into propositions that might jail more adults and minors more so than addressing the issues that catalyze crime in the first place.


Please visit the website below for more information.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Crime in California 2005
http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd05/preface.pdf

Let's blame the poor people

While I have briefly mentioned the portion of the Safe Neighborhood Act that required public housing residents to undergo background checks regularly, I believe it requires more thoughtful consideration.

A portion of the initiative summary for proposition 6 states that “anyone caught buying or selling drugs, who is involved in gang activity, or illegally in possession of firearms will lose their public housing benefit.” Additionally, “it requires an annual criminal background check as a condition of housing.

benefits” (http://www.safeneighborhoodsact.com/InitiativeSummary/tabid/55/Default.aspx).
While the thought of anyone loosing their home has a bold and dangerous consequence, the fact that all in public housing residents may be subject to criminal investigation is troublesome. So basically, the government will provide $10 million every year to agencies responsible for proper occupancy requirements, and in return, these government agencies are required to produce background checks for occupants.

The first problem with this is that it purposefully attacks lower income families. Poorer families will be individually targeted over wealthier families who are not in need of government housing assistance. While poverty often does house a number of social issues, such as crimes, this proposition will disproportionately target an already vulnerable part of society.

This discriminatory act purposefully aims to find and try poorer criminals in such a manner that assumes that poorer people are more dangerous to society than all other economic backgrounds. Annual background checks is a formal way of discrimination that will inevitably result in a disproportionately larger number of poorer people alienated.

Additionally, what background checks such as these will do is expand the homeless population which does not exactly contribute to safer neighborhoods in California. Background checks will punish the families of those who engage in unlawful crimes by removing them from government units and thus, increasing the number of homeless in the streets.

The homeless rate in California is already a significantly large one. According to an article in The Review of Economics and Statistics, in 1997 the country’s homeless population fell somewhere between .15% and .3%, while California had approximately 361,000 or 1.1% of the total population.

Homelessness in California already has a significant problem with this issue, especially in the larger urban cities of the state. Background checking would force some families out of their homes if they did not meet the requirements of the checks. Poorer families would be displaced and possibly as a result, homeless. This results as a punishment not only for the persons who commit crimes, but also punishes their families who become victims of these checks.

Crime is an issue, however, purposefully as a way of preventing crime or reducing it is unfair to poorer public housing residence. It concludes that their need for assistance means that they are more violent and dangerous than others. Creating more homelessness is not a way of solving the issues facing California and clearly disenfranchises a group from laws that are supposed to protect everyone equally.


Homeless in America, Homeless in California
John M. Quigley, Steven Raphael and Eugene Smolensky
The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 37-51

Southpark Crew sings California Love (their remix)

Scary propaganda

NO on 6 is the website that obviously advocates against the proposition.
Unfortunately, the website does not contain crafty videos from an older nice man. In fact, it does not have any videos that would be neat to spread around.

I have thus resorted to trusty YouTube videos I found on google video search. I have found a few interesting ones, but the one that I enjoyed most was a video created by the South Bay Coalition. According to their website, the South Bay Coalition formed in 1987 in order to address substance abuse among youth in the South Bay. So while they endorse the movement against the act, they are not the actual No on 6 organization.

What I found so special about this two minute and thirty-three second video is that while I also thought it was as wonderful as the videos on the Safe Neighborhood website, it made an error that is unfair to the opposing team.

No On Prop 6 Commercial


First off, the music was not as great. When you watched the short videos on the Safe Neighborhood website, the music was a little funny and clearly intended to create happiness and fear. This new video did not match up, but this really isn’t the point. What I found misleading and a little freighting was the fact that the advertisement said that the proposition would deport illegal aliens.

The proposition is clear that illegal immigrants charged with a gang or violent crime will not be released on bail (as stated in the Official Voter Information Guide, available online at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt6.htm). This means that everyone charged will be subject to a background check and this will then lead to the deportation of illegal immigrants.

This proposition does not specify any sort new form of retaining people based on their immigration status as I understood from the short clip. Still, I do not really understand how a person’s immigration status has anything with crime prevention and why it's even a part of this proposition in the first place.

So far there is no evidence that immigration status has a negative correlation with crime rate. In fact, economists Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl found that immigrants (both legal and illegal) are far less likely to commit crime than those born in the United States (Boston Globe). The issue of immigration in this bill is then not appropriate and irrelevant for the purpose of maintaining safe neighborhoods. The intentions of this bill appear to be multiple, and that too is misleading. It assumes that illegal immigrants are directly related to violent crimes which is misleading and a deceptive manner of passing this bill.

While I do not approve of the South Bay Coalition video, I also do not find this portion of the bill necessary or important in any way relating to crime reduction.

South Bay Coalition
http://www.sbcoalition.com/

Jacoby, Jeff. "Immigration and crime." The Boston Globe March 5, 2008: A15.

They’re not just kids anymore

Though minors commit less crimes than adults, the figure below shows how mislead people might become due to unbalanced crime coverage. The impression becomes that minors are dangerous and require strong laws imposed on them.

















OFF BALANCE: Youth, Race & Crime in the News
www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/media/exec.html


The Safe Neighborhood Act clearly aims to minimize street crime. If passed, money will enter prevention programs and more money will enter into law enforcement and prison. Crimes are unfair to communities and to offenders who for any reason might feel the need to commit them. These are unfortunate situations, but they happen.

What I don’t like or understand, though, is why this proposition aims to try minors as young as 14 as adults for certain crimes, most notably, in any sort of gang-related crime such as recruitment or committing a violent offense.

Yes, I am aware that this was proposed as a manner of reducing gang participation and promoting strong regulatory consequences. While these are the intentions, though, the lives of some youth would be subject to the same consequence an adult would face in certain crimes.

What is important to note is that law and society hold minors different expectations than adults. Minors are still obliged to an educational system that is supposed to continue forming their paths as adults. To take a minor, possibly just entering high school and holding them accountable to the expectations of adults in order to prevent crime is an extreme manner of regulating crime. Rather than modifying law to punish minors, laws should mend to prevent certain minors from having to engage in unlawful activities.

An ironic addition to this is the fact that extending adult law over to minors would inevitably contribute to the expense of this bill. The indefinite amount of money necessary for this bill is explained in “Money Matters,” (you can also check it out at http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2007/070919.aspx) however, while I do not wish to complain necessarily about the amount of very pricy proposition, I do want to reiterate the fact that in order to fund this proposition, 1% of California’s general fund will be utilized to pay for the known expenses (not including any unforeseeably glitches along the way). This means that money that would otherwise go to public schools would indeed be reallocated to fulfill the needs of this proposition.

While Prevention programs are a specified on the Safe Neighborhood Act, this acts as a small Band-Aid on a large bleeding wound. A little less than 15 % would address prevention AND rehabilitation programs in certain communities. Therefore, instead of initiating a drastic measure that prevents the crime in urban cities and that affects youth, a the proposition seeks a drastic measure that punishes minors as criminals before they can even have a place in society as adults.

Yes on Prop 6 Multimedia, what the videos say

I can’t honestly say that I listen to the radio too often, however, this weekend I was lucky enough to tune into K-EARTH 101. To my surprise, a yes on proposition 6 commercial ad aired. After that I decided to attempt to find the commercial online, and failed to find it, but I was still curious…

I visited the Safe Neighborhood Act- Yes on Prop 6 website and decided to watch some of their multimedia videos provided. The videos are excellent, the entire website is phenomenal. Chapter 1 plays wonderful and entertaining folk music to juxtapose the horrible gang violence in our communities. The purpose is specific: addressing gangs in urban cities. Chapter 2 is even better than the first; it instills fear regarding the family safety. According to this clever video, businesses will close and good families will move out. So basically, it you believe in safety and prosperity, you will vote in favor of proposition.

Something that I have noticed in lots of these videos, which I think is hilarious, is that they consistently include black families. Wait, it’s not done in a manner that portrays blacks in a dangerous and violent manner, some of their short videos illustrate how blacks are forced to leave do to excessive violence in the community and how blacks will benefit and live happily if the proposition succeeds. I just think it is funny how the proposition clearly aims to imprison certain groups so they purposefully include that groups into most of their videos in a positive way.

Chapter 6 (or video 6) really nails down some of the ways this proposition will supposedly protect citizens. One such measure specified is the fact that anyone who receives public housing assistance and is caught selling drugs will be removed from public housing. This, however, is not the full extent of it. What the video does NOT address is the fact that public housing units will be subject to background checks. Not only this, but entire families will be evicted from their unit if any member of that family is convicted of such a crime.

The purpose for these searches is that they are theoretically supposed to place more accountability on the families. This means that if a person is aware of the negative consequences their actions will have towards their families, then crime will reduce. The issue with this is the fact that such a measure proposes that crimes are all committed with malicious intentions. Indeed, crimes negatively affect people, even those not directly related to them; however, crimes occur for a number of reasons.

For now, I will leave it at that. This is a necessary issue that should be addressed further, but the clips this website presents are pretty interesting- especially some of the music. There are 7 chapters (or 7 videos) under the tab “multimedia.”

Please visit them at http://www.safeneighborhoodsact.com/Multimedia/Video/tabid/65/Default.aspx

Money Matters, the cost of proposition 6

But, how much will this proposition cost? And where will it all be allocated?? Well, combating gang violence is not cheap, and neither is Proposition 6.

Safe Neighborhood Act increases criminal state and local programs by $365 million in 2009-2010, plus adjustment for inflation. This increase results in the spending of almost $1 billion, which would still not meet unforeseeable needs.

The measure would invest $115 (31.6%) million on Juvenile & Adult Probation, $143.5 (39.4%) on Law Enforcement, $53.5 (14.7) on Prevention and Rehabilitation and the rest on a number of other smaller pockets.

In addition, a one-time half billion dollars will need to be spent in prisons to accommodate for more prisoners.

Other costs are also unforeseeable. Costs in trial courts, county jails and other facilities are uncertain. The Preventative measures in this bill are not quite clear. They may perhaps reduce the need of these facilities, the need is unclear.

Thus, an actual clear cost is not available. It is unknown how much will actually be invested in order to meet the needs of this bill. The question then becomes, where will this money come from?

The answer is that it will be drawn from the General Fund. 1% of the General Fund will be utilized for this measure, regardless of its effectiveness.

Important questions can be formed from this. How effective will gang- prevention programs be? How much more crowded will prisons become? Can this sum be modified in times of economic crisis? Is there another way of combating this crime? These have not and perhaps can not be answered by anyone quite yet.


Legislative Analyst’s Office
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2007/070919.aspx

No on 6
http://www.votenoprop6.com/facts_facts.html

Who are you really trying to get?

The proposition’s name “The Safe Neighborhood Act” clearly portrays that it will pursue positive agenda. The name states that the policy will render greater safety to Californians. I wonder, though, who will this prop make us safer from? Well, the answer is quite clear and explicit.

The official support webpage for proposition 6 states: “Stop Gang, Gun and Street Crime.” The proposition is tailored to combat street gang-related crimes. This is evident through the penalties that will be increased for those convicted of for gang-related crimes such as being in possession of a weapon, recruitment and intimidation of individuals. In addition, it will increase penalty sentencing for the sale and possession of methamphetamine, and passions of firearms among others.

One of the authors of the proposition, Senator Reynolds stated that proposition 6 “increases penalties for crimes often associated with gangs,” which it clearly addresses. Now, the question becomes, who are the participants of these gangs, and who is this proposition really targeting?

Gangs mostly exists in larger urban settings, thus, enactment of the law would take place in the larger cities of California. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland among a long list of others would all be targeted under this bill. Something important about this is the fact that these centers house large percentages of ethnic minorities who would be purposefully targeted.

Gangs of blacks and Latinos would be targeted for crimes instead of attempting to reduce crime as a whole. By virtue of its aim, Proposition 6 will target blacks and Latinos and increase their time in prison. Somehow, by incriminating more blacks and Latinos, crimes such as robbery and murder would disappear and crime would not exist as it presently does. Somehow, the issues that contribute to this behavior will no longer play a role in street crime.

The measure does, I must include, require spending on programs designed to target gang-related activities. However, its funding in itself takes 1% of California’s General Fund, which in itself is spent on socials services such as the public school system. The financial aspect of this proposition also very important, and something I will further investigate.

Meet the Authors...

I think an interesting way of understanding this bill is to take a close look at who authored this proposition, and what they have done.

To begin, this proposition has four authors: Senator George Runner, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, author Mike Reynolds and San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt.

Both Senator and Assemblywoman Runner authored Jessica’s Law, which overwhelmingly passed in 2006. The law’s purpose was to reduce sex offender’s likelihood of attacking again. Since its passage in 2006, however, only 63% of sex offenders were hospitalized compared to the 80% who were given medical attention before the law was enacted. In addition, Jessica’s Law prohibits ex-sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. While this ideally distances children from predators, it also created homelessness which might perpetuate the situation. The bill overall cost $31 million the last fiscal year, ultimately, without significant improvements.

Reynolds might be known for the now five-year old “Three strikes and you’re out” law. This California law convicts felons committing their third-strike to life in prison. While ideally this law keep dangerous convicts out of the streets, in actuality, it also jails felons who did not even commit dangerous crimes, and thus, do not represent a serious a danger.

It appears that the authors clearly support and sponsor bills that aim to secure Californians, however, these laws have been very costly and not efficient. Jessica’s Law has not helped ex-sex offenders reintegrate into society more than their policy had before. It has merely resulted in a major expense. The Three strikes law unfairly jails nonviolent criminals to life, resulting in long-term cost expenditures. While I do not wish to claim that these two laws and the Good Neighborhood Act proposition are the same, some significant similarities seem to emerge.

Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 11, 2008. pg. B.1
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 24, 1999. pg. 6




California State Senator Runner addresses budget crisis and prisons.
Quote: "I don’t know who these nonviolent felons are"

Safe Neighborhoods Act: A Summary

California has 12 propositions on the ballot this November, some of which have been greatly highlighted and debated. While Proposition 6 has not received quite as much attention as other initiatives, the changes the proposition aims to achieve are quite significant and worthy of closer consideration.

Proposition 6, or the Safe Neighborhoods Act, proposes to reduce violent crime and gang violence by increasing penalties for convicted persons. The aim to “Stop Gang, Gun and Street Crime” would, among a long list of other penalty, add an additional ten years incarceration for gang members who commit violent crimes. Try gang members convicted of extortion, home robbery, and theft of an occupied vehicle to life in prison. It also identifies the possession of methamphetamine as a felony rather than as either a misdemeanor or a felony and increases jail time.

The initiative also alters state laws in order to facilitate law enforcement to charge gang members preemptively of crimes. In addition, public housing residents would be required to submit to criminal background checks and subject to eviction if a member other of the residence is incriminated. The initiative even further extends to deny release with bail if a person is held for gang-related charges and is undocumented in the United States.

Juveniles in California would also be largely affected. Some counties may receive grants aimed at reducing juvenile participation in street crimes. If, however, a juvenile is charged with a violent gang offense, youth as young as 14 years of age can be tried as adults.

Prop 6 requires spending $965 million on the criminal justice programs, that is, $365 million more than the current budget with an increase of $100 million over the next five years. Specific assistance is granted to renovate and expand county jails and juvenile facilities, city programs aimed at enforcing target violent gang crimes, and law enforcement programs. The initiative will not increase taxes, rather, reallocate 1% from the state general fund in order to meet the cost. Long term costs, however, are not quite certain or predictable.

California GEneral Election Website
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt6.htm