Prop 5: Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation

Proposition 5 would provide much-needed reforms to the state’s criminal justice and drug rehabilitation systems. An expansion of Prop 36, the 2000 initiative that established a drug treatment diversion program for nonviolent drug offenders, Prop. 5 would funnel more money into that program. It would also refine sentencing and parole guidelines.

Instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on incarceration and excessive parole sentencing, Prop. 5 establishes a three-track system that takes into account offenders’ criminal, substance abuse and treatment histories. The initiative also drops possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction (like a speeding ticket) and directs the $100 fine from the infraction to fund drug treatment programs for juvenile substance abusers.

Additional reforms include expanded treatment for juvenile drug offenders and oversight committees to track the effectiveness of the programs.
Due to savings from decreased incarceration and parole costs, plus the money saved from decreasing the need to build more prisons, the net cost of the $460 million-per-year-program would be neutral.

The cycles of substance abuse and criminal recidivism can only be broken through realistic, comprehensive drug treatment programs that emphasize rehabilitation and make incarceration the very last resort. Prop. 5 is a vital piece of the vast reform needed in our state’s broken criminal justice system.

Prop 6 Police and Law Enforcement Funding

State Proposition 6—fundamentally a lock-‘em-up initiative originated by married SoCal state representatives George and Sharon Runner—has won the endorsements of numerous police and sheriff’s organizations. Given spreading statewide gang problems, which it’s designed to address, we can see why.
But the proposed law, informally known as “The Safe Neighborhoods Act,” has a serious economic—not to mention moral—downside.

Prop. 6 will add up to 10 years to the prison sentences of previously convicted felons who are caught carrying weapons, as well as gang offenders picked up for violent crimes. It also adds five years’ annual registration for gang members following prison discharge and increased sentences for meth makers and dealers and witness tamperers.

Perhaps proving that its sponsors are hard-core law ‘n’ order zealots, Prop. 6’s draconian language applies to repeat graffiti violators. In addition to being Neanderthal in its approach to crime-prevention, the proposal is a budget-buster. The state budget analyst’s office calculates its immediate costs at $365 million a year ($465 million a year in 2013) and points out that it will require, over time, prison construction and upgrade costs of an additional $500 million.

Deeper questions exist about the very root of the program; namely, the practice of authorities’ assigning “gang enhancements” to youth offences, thus increasing sentences. Mistakes have frequently been made, and once law enforcement personnel have labeled someone a gang member, it’s virtually impossible for that person to get off the list.

Several state labor unions and taxpayers’ groups, and even firefighters’ groups, have stated opposition to Proposition 6.