Proposition 20 got little attention on a California November 2020 ballot that was dominated by the presidential race and cluttered with 11 other state measures and numerous local issues. Voters just didn't have the bandwidth to recognize the common sense reforms offered by Prop. 20 — and the ballot itself actually made things worse. The measure failed.
Proposition 20 was aimed at fixing flaws in two earlier measures (propositions 47 and 57) that aimed to reduce California's prison population by releasing "non-violent" criminals and changing some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
These changes were well-intended, but the laws were imperfectly designed. First, 2014's Proposition 47 defined all crimes as "non-violent" unless the law specifically called them violent. This might seem fine, but in reality, there has been no consistent use of the term "violent" in California law.
This means that many clearly violent crimes are classified as "non-violent," including assault with a deadly weapon, exploding a bomb, rape of an unconscious person, assaulting a peace office, felony domestic violence, shooting into an inhabited building, and assault by a caregiver on a child under 8 that could result in death or coma.
In one Ventura County case, a man convicted of 86 counts of poisoning, sexual battery and rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person was not considered a violent criminal under California law, making him eligible for early release from prison.
Prop. 20 would have fixed this by defining all of the above crimes as violent (also on the list is the crime of selling a child for sex), preventing those offenders from getting a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The second major provision of Prop. 20 would have addressed a problem created by Prop. 47, which increased the dollar threshold for felony theft from $450 to $950 in stolen goods. As a result, retail stores have seen a surge in brazen and repeated thefts, with some thieves carefully tallying their haul to stay under $950. The thieves understand that police will not hurry to the scene of misdemeanor and, even at worst, they might get a ticket.
Prop. 20 would have created a new felony of "serial theft" that applies to anyone who steals over $250 three times, helping to send repeat thieves to prison.
As you can see, these changes are hardly controversial. So why did Prop. 20 lose?
The answer is all in the ballot summary.
In an election like this one, 98% of voters' attention was on the Trump-Biden presidential race. A little room was left over for high-profile contests like Prop. 22, involving the treatment of rideshare drivers (this measure drew the highest advocacy spending of any in state history), and a couple battles over property taxes.
Prop. 20 got little attention and when that happens, the description of the measure that appears on the ballot becomes all-important. In California, the ballot summary is written by the attorney general and currently that is Democrat Xavier Becerra, who uses the role to advance his own political ideology.
The first sentence of Prop. 20 ballot summary reads "Restricts parole for certain offenses currently considered to be non-violent." To say this twists the truth is an understatement. Who considers assault with a deadly weapon, felony domestic violence or setting off a bomb to be non-violent?
A much better, and impartial, sentence would be "Changes classification of certain crimes from 'non-violent' to violent.'"
The second sentence of the ballot summary reads: "Authorizes felony sentences for certain offenses currently treated only as misdemeanors." The vagueness of this is astonishing. Given no details and no context, voters could hardly be blamed for reading this and questioning why felony sentences would apply to any misdemeanor.
A much-better, and fairer, sentence would be: "Creates new felony crime of serial theft for three or more convictions of stealing items of at least $250 in value."
The third sentence of the ballot summary says: "Limits access to parole program established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses."
Again, this is hugely misleading, suggesting the bill only relates to non-violent criminals and deliberately obscuring the fact that violent offenders are being released early from prison.
A better sentence would be, "Bars those convicted of offenses reclassified as violent from program for early prison release."
No comments:
Post a Comment