Welcome to the Virtual UU Meeting House

Proposition 66
Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment.

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.

• Official Summary, Pros & Cons
• Other Resources : Organizations , Articles, Reports, Links
• UU Commentaries
• Other California Ballot Propositions

Virtual UU Meeting House discussion: come on in, and read what people had to say.

Official Summary and Arguments

Proposition 66 limits "Three Strikes" law to violent and/or serious felonies. Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.  Fiscal Impact:  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. 

Official Voter Information Guide (pdf)
Source: California Secretary of State / Elections and Voter Information

Campaign Finance Information
Source: California Secretary of State / Cal-Access

A YES vote on 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 on 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.

Arguments FOR Proposition 66

Proposition 66 restores three strikes to its original intent--ensuring criminals currently serving time for violent offenses are kept in prison, saving taxpayers billions of dollars currently wasted imprisoning shoplifters and other nonviolent, petty offenders for life. Proposition 66 protects children with tougher 1-Strike sentences for child molesters. Yes on Proposition 66.

FOR Proposition 66: Rod Hodges, President, Violence Research Foundation; Rev. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director, California Church Impact; Ronald Hampton, Executive Director, National Black Police Association; Mark Leno, Chairman, California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety; Ramona Ripston, Executive Director, ACLU of Southern California; Joe Klaas, Chairman, Citizens Against Violent Crime

Arguments AGAINST Proposition 66

Proposition 66 is opposed by Governor Schwarzenegger, the Attorney General, all 58 District Attorneys, the state's leading law enforcement, taxpayer, and child protection groups. Costs millions and threatens public safety by creating a legal loophole that could release an estimated 26,000 convicted felons-- including rapists, child molesters, and murderers.

AGAINST Proposition 66: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California; Harriet Salarno, Chair, Crime Victims United of California; Cam Sanchez, President, California Police Chiefs Association; Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Shiela Anderson, President, Prevent Child Abuse California

top

For Proposition 66

ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Citizens Against Violent Crime
Families to Amend California 's Three-Strikes – FACTS
Fix Three Strikes Yes on 66

Against Proposition 66

Californians United for Public Safety
Crime Victims United of California
Three Strikes and You're Out#8212; Stop Repeat Offenders

Nonpartisan Background and Analysis

Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley

League of Women Voters

Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports

Grieving parents fight '3-strikes' change
Sacramento Bee, September 8, 2004

A rare escape from 3-strikes law
San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 2004

Should voters change 'three strikes' law this fall?
Sacramento Bee, July 25, 2004

`3 strikes' campaign splits Klaas family
San Diego Union-Tribune, July 14, 2004, as posted by NewsBank

Last updated on September 30, 2004

top

UU Commentaries  

"The religious community is essential, for alone our vision is too narrow to see all that must be seen.
Together, our vision widens and strength is renewed."
—Mark Morrison-Reed

For Proposition 66

Commentary 1: "A collect call from Billy"
[Editor's Note: Billy in not the actual name of the young man described in this commentary.]

I got a collect phone call from my young friend Billy yesterday. From jail. Not that I was surprised. He's been stealing since he was 13 - sometimes from me, other times from his family (yes, even the food stamps, and yes, I'm still angry). Once I brought him to a Halloween party at my UU church. He stole money from the purses women left in the pews. This time it's armed robbery.

Jail is not as horrible as I had thought it was, when it was an abstract concept and I was a liberal who didn't know any ghetto kids. He hates it, but when he's in jail, he attends the classes. He hasn't been to school for 5 years. When he's in jail he attends to anger management meetings, where he talks about the violence in his childhood and how that has affected him.

I've always voted against money for prisons. But I don't really want BILLY to be out of jail. I've seen how people can commit crimes over and over without getting arrested. I'm taking all of these experiences and thoughts and feelings into consideration when I think about the 3-Strikes Law.

Despite all my frustration with Billy, I don't agree with any law that limits the possibilities for taking the specific circumstances and history of a situation into account. The 3-Strikes law doesn't leave room for considering other interventions, other possible ways of changing someone's behavior. It doesn't distinguish between violent and nonviolent felonies. It mandates a specific kind of intervention for all cases - the harshness of the penal system. There are times when someone's life will change because they had to face a severe penalty for what they did. And there are times when someone's life will change because they were given one more chance. We can't make a blanket rule that covers all cases.

Ultimately, I trust the judges, the caseworkers, the probation officers to do their best to decide how to deal with my friend Billy. I want them to be able to think flexibly about what he's done, what the pattern of his behavior is, and what might work to turn him around. I don't want to hamstring them by requiring that they deal with his case in a particular way, not when I still have hope that he may someday change. For that reason, I support Proposition 66, which will amend the 3-Strikes law, so that nonviolent felonies don't count as a third strike.

Heather MacLeod
First Unitarian Church of Oakland

"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,
the true place for a just man is also a prison."
—Henry David Thoreau

Commentary 2: "Not knowing often gets us into trouble"

Not knowing often gets us into trouble as individuals, groups, and societies. That is where we are, to a large degree, in our understanding of what we are doing about a law voted on by most of us, in ignorance--being misled--in 1996, called familiarly "The Three Strikes Law." We now, finally, have an opportunity to amend that law which has developed into, essentially, a crime in and of itself. So, in behalf of education, decency, and wisdom, let us review some facts.

California, a state with devastating budget problems, because of the current Three Strikes Law, is choosing to spend a million dollars to lock up a man for life, regardless of the innocuousness of the crime. It is an appalling choice of where to place resources, and an appalling decision to do terrible damage to our poorest communities.

There is really no negative political consequence to being tough on crime, and there are enormous political risks to supporting reduced use of incarceration.

As regards the voting opportunity on November: until we build a constituency for criminal justice change, America will continue in its addiction to punishment because the short-term fix is so compelling and the long-term consequences fall on other people's shoulders. Ballot measure, Proposition 66 would amend our current California "Three Strikes Law" to:

• allow only violent or serious crimes to trigger the stiffer prison sentences.
• save 700 million or more per year of taxpayer dollars.
• remove some crimes from the list of those deemed serious or violent, including attempted burglary, burglary of an unoccupied building, and conspiracy to commit assault.
• permit no more than one strike to be assessed per conviction.
• make the amendments retroactive to March 1994, which could lead to the resentencing of more than 26,000 NON-VIOLENT petty offenders, which we have spent 8.1 BILLION dollars on in the last 10 years. (The prisoners would not all be released at the same time.)
• mandate prison sentences of six, eight, or 12 years for the first offense involving sexual assault of a minor under 14.
• give judges discretion to sentence first-time offenders to prison terms of 25 years-to-life if the victim is under age 10.
• second convictions for such offenses would be punishable by terms of 25 years-to-life.

The goal: reduce the crime rate in the rest of California to match the greater drops in the crime rates in those counties who have not applied "Three Strikes" to non-violent petty offenders.

Barbara Kent
First Unitarian-Universalist Church of Stockton