Why voters should reject “Second Chances” initiative.
10 reasons voters should nix ‘justice reform’ idea
Voters in November will be asked to consider the California-funded “Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety Act.”
The antagonists in George Orwell’s 1984 would have applauded the proponents’ use of “doublespeak” in crafting this title. In truth, the initiative will make Arizona communities decidedly less safe by giving unlimited chances to very dangerous criminals and slashing a key rehabilitation program. It should be rejected by Arizona voters.
There are at least 10 independently sufficient reasons why this initiative should be defeated.
It is a great deception. According to the proponents’ summary, the proposed law reduces time served in prison for “nondangerous offenses.”
But the summary fails to explain that many of the so-called “nondangerous” of
fenders who will be released early by this law are, in fact, incredibly dangerous. For example, a criminal who sells a 15-year-old girl into the sex trade is labeled “nondangerous.” Other types of “nondangerous” crimes include kidnapping, forms of terrorism, home invasion assaults, domestic violence by strangulation, assaults on our police or firefighters, assaults that cause substantial disfigurement, defrauding an elderly couple out of their life savings, and even some attempted First Degree Murders.
2. The proponents compound this deception by failing to tell voters that their proposal would permit unsupervised probation or virtually no prison at all for these same serious offenses. Imagine giving unsupervised probation to terrorists with prior felony convictions or repeat sex traffickers, among so many other dangerous criminals. Crime victims will be left with no justice and no protection. This is a cynical corruption of our language and our criminal laws.
3. This unrestrained, indeterminate leniency for dangerous criminals will lead to gross and unfair disparities in sentencing, ensuring that different individuals receive wildly differing penalties for the same crime. This haphazard approach to justice was tried and failed in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, it was such a failure that it was repealed with bipartisan support: In 1978, Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature joined then Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt to end this inequitable system. The proponents would undo that good work.
4. Unrestrained leniency for dangerous criminals will inevitably bring more crime and more crime victims. Crime was skyrocketing during the 1960s and 1970s under the system to which the proponents want to return. But since the bipartisan reforms in 1978, crime rates have plummeted. In 1975, Arizona had 8,341.5 serious crimes for every 100,000 residents. By 2018, that number had fallen to 3,151.7 — a decrease of more than 60%. This poorly considered initiative would take a wrecking ball to the policies that have made Arizona communities safer.
5. In a breathtaking extension of these bad ideas, this initiative applies its leniency to many criminals who commit unlimited numbers of repeat offenses. For example, a person with 10 prior felony convictions, on felony probation and felony pretrial release, who commits a kidnapping can receive unsupervised probation for that offense. Is this what the proponents intended? Regardless, it’s what’s drafted, and they did not tell voters. And regardless of how many crimes a person commits before the police catch up to him, there is no increased mandatory punishment. A person who burglarizes 30 houses in 30 days is still eligible for probation so long as they keep committing crimes before they are sentenced. Could the drafters have intended that? Again, they did not tell the voters.
6. The proposal is sold as enhancing “rehabilitation,” but it inexplicably removes the literacy requirement that inmates currently must satisfy before release. At present, an inmate must achieve an 8th grade literacy level before they can be released to community supervision, with exceptions for people who are not capable of achieving such a level. Eliminating this will make it harder for inmates to become contributing members of society once released. Far from “rehabilitating” criminals, this proposal would increase the odds they return to prison.
7. By reducing time served in prison and limiting the time for supervised release, the proposal significantly reduces the time an inmate has to make rehabilitative progress. Calling this a “Rehabilitation Act” is a dangerous misuse of the language.
8. The proposal makes it harder and much more costly to discipline inmates who defy certain important rules. Keeping inmates law-abiding within the prison is a key part of any true rehabilitation program. Being able swiftly to impose real consequences for these rules violations is a key to success. Under present law, the Department of Corrections (DOC) can hold disciplinary hearings in the prison for violations of certain rules. The initiative would take this power away from DOC, forcing it to file a court case — and transport the prisoner to and from court — every time it wants to discipline a prisoner for certain violations. This is a monumentally unwise, unsafe and costly change.
9. The initiative makes these changes retroactive. Under Section 11(4), DOC is required to recalculate the earned release credits of criminals who have already been sentenced. This will effectively change the length of their sentences without any input from victims. This is a gross and unconstitutional denial of the victims’ rights to justice, due process, and finality.
10. None of these problems can be fixed by the Legislature because of “voter protection.” If crime rates spike because the initiative lets sex offenders, kidnappers, and terrorists off the hook, the Legislature won’t be able to do anything about it because of the constitutional provision that makes voter initiatives almost impossible for the state Legislature to fix. This is the worst possible way to make criminal justice policy, handcuffing Arizona to a set of triedand-failed policies and throwing away the key.
Sensible criminal justice reforms are broadly supported and are being implemented. Among other things, they focus on diversion of individuals with mental health and addiction problems. We applaud and support these efforts. They have been driven by thoughtful stakeholders, including prosecutors, sheriffs and others, who are striking the right balance between safety and reform.
This California-funded initiative proposes a radical turn in our criminal justice policies. It would bring Arizona back to the days of unrestrained leniency for dangerous criminals and unfair sentencing outcomes. Worse yet, because it is voter-protected, the initiative would prevent Arizona from changing course when these policies inevitably produce more crime victims. Arizona voters should reject this “dangerous” and deceptive initiative.
It would bring Arizona back to the days of unrestrained leniency for dangerous criminals and unfair sentencing outcomes.
Jon Kyl is a former U.S. senator from Arizona and with Sen. Dianne Feinstein sponsored the federal Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004. Steve Twist was the principal author of the 1990 voterapproved Victims Bill of Rights constitutional amendment. Share thoughts at steventwist@gmail.com.