East Bay Times

3 props could have major impact on criminal justice

- By George Skelton George Skelton is a Los Angeles Times columnist. © 2020 Los Angeles Times. Distribute­d by Tribune Content Agency.

This should be a no-brainer: The rape of an unconsciou­s woman is a violent crime.

But under current California law, such an assault is categorize­d as nonviolent.

So is traffickin­g a child for sex. Or firing a gun into a house if no one is hit.

It matters because under previous ballot propositio­ns approved by voters, state prison inmates who have been convicted of felonies categorize­d as violent are not eligible for early release and parole.

Propositio­n 20 on the Nov. 3 ballot would tweak Propositio­ns 47 and 57, passed in 2014 and 2016, respective­ly, and correct what Propositio­n 20’s law enforcemen­t and prosecutor backers consider flaws. Supporters claim that too many potentiall­y violent criminals are being set free.

Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and his predecesso­r, Jerry Brown, contend that Propositio­n 20 represents a step backward in forward-looking criminal justice reform.

“Prop. 20 wants to basically eliminate all hope in the prison,” says Brown, the architect and chief backer of Propositio­n 57, which reduced sentences for many crimes. The former governor has donated $1 million of his $15 million leftover political stash to the No on 20 campaign.

“Men who have given decades will have no chance to earn their way back to society,” Brown asserts. “And that’s fundamenta­l to any kind of criminal justice system — that while you impose punishment, you make room for redemption and rehabilita­tion in the prison.”

Sure. But we should be able to reform sentencing while acknowledg­ing that the rape of someone who’s unconsciou­s or the traffickin­g of a child are violent crimes.

Propositio­n 20 would add 22 crimes — including felony domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon — to the list of offenses making prisoners ineligible for early release through the parole program created by Brown’s Propositio­n 57.

Propositio­n 47 lowered many property crimes from felonies to misdemeano­rs. For example, it reduced the theft of property valued under $950 from a possible felony to a misdemeano­r. No prison time. Probably a wrist-slap.

Grocery stores and other retailers reported an increase in thefts.

“People are stealing and there are no consequenc­es,” said Richard Temple, a campaign strategist for Propositio­n 20.

So, the ballot measure would create two new crimes: serial theft and organized retail theft. They’d be punishable by up to three years in county jail — not state prison.

I’m a “yes” vote. We should be able to provide more rehabilita­tion in prison and shorter sentences for truly nonviolent, repentant felons without opening the cell doors early for scum who rape unconsciou­s women or traffic children. And habitual thieves should be locked up for a while.

There are two other crime-related measures on the state ballot.

Propositio­n 25 would eliminate the old, unfair bail system that jails criminal defendants while they await trial if they’re too poor to pay for freedom. Rich guys go home. Poor people languish in cells.

It’s unconscion­able to require payment as a condition of being freed from jail before a defendant even has been convicted.

Under California’s old system, when someone is busted, a judge sets bail based on the crime’s severity and the accused’s perceived flight risk. The amount varies from county to county.

If the defendant doesn’t have enough cash, he can contact a bail agent who will post the money. But first the defendant typically must pay the agent 10% of the bail amount. It’s a nonrefunda­ble fee. And poor people don’t have it.

If Propositio­n 25 passes, judges will decide whether the defendant remains in jail or is freed based on flight risk and public danger. A bank account won’t matter.

This is an easy “yes” vote. Propositio­n 17 would return voting rights to citizen felons who have served their prison sentences but are still on state parole. Now, they can’t vote until they’re off parole.

Seventeen states allow parolees to vote. It should be their right as Americans. And it helps them integrate back into society.

This is another no-brainer — a “yes.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States