BrandonisokCalifornia Politics Topic: Proposition 47 is a 2014 ballot initiative that sought to reduce non-violent, non-serious crimes from misdemeanors to felonies. From the Legislative Analyst Office website: (lao.ca.gov) on average the burden on the state taxpayer to house one inmate for a year is $81,203.
Prop 47 is an overt plan to reduce this tax burden on the people by reducing the seriousness of crimes. Officers were now given liberty to “cite and release” for applicable offenses rather than arrest which would free up valuable real estate and time in courts, jails and prisons. A caveat is that the defendant could not have prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes. (ballotpedia.org) The proposition also allowed the restructuring of sentencing for current inmates housed for applicable crimes with the intent on reducing the number of people imprisoned. Lenore Anderson, a former prosecutor and Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice, said as many as 10,000 inmates would be eligible to petition for resentencing if the initiative passes. (sfappeal.com) The initiative passed. The state has now freed up a bunch of money ($150-$250 million annually, on average) previously set aside to house criminals. What do we now do with the extra money? The fallout money was used to create a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. Something interesting here is that the initiative didn’t seek to lower taxes and give the money back to the taxpayer, rather it was designed to redistribute the money to other places where funding experienced a deficit. This “extra” money could be proportionately used for good. The money was chopped up and the distribution looks like this: 25 percent to the Department of Education, 10 percent to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and 65 percent to the Board of State and Community Correction (ballotpedia.org). Why do the Board of State and Community Correction get such a large chunk? I would think Department of Education would get the lion’s share. Educated people with real, viable, economic opportunities tend to commit less crime. Bob Wise, former Governor of West Virginia was quoted in an article for the Alliance for Excellent Education’s website: “Improving the nation’s high schools and engaging students will not only save the nation dollars... it will save students’ futures.” My point is, allocating all of this money for correction rather than education seems to be pruning the “crime tree” at the branch rather than fixing it at the root–by funding education. When pruned properly, a tree–in our case, crime–grows exponentially whereas when attacked at the root, a tree dies. This is an analogy of course, but I find it applicable. The allotted space for this blog post isn’t big enough to fully dissect the allocation of funding issue here. However, it will be approached in detail for the final project. Why do we care about this proposition? Let’s examine it from three different perspectives: the criminal, law-enforcement, and the layman taxpayer that may shine some light on the proposition and could help form an opinion. At the end of each post I will tell you if I think the respective group wins or loses. The Criminal: “Criminal” is a broad term. Perhaps all of us are guilty of a crime (even convicted! I admit, I have been found guilty of breaking a traffic law before–speeding–and ordered to pay a fine) at least once in our life. Let’s narrow our definition of criminal. Looking at the intent of prop 47, whom does the relaxation of punishment really affect? From the California General Election and Voter Guide and ballotpedia.org, the measure required misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes: • Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950 • Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950 • Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950 • Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950 • Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950 • Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950 • Personal use of most illegal drugs Interesting things to note here: Grand theft is defined by theft where the value exceeds $1000, therefore the measure seems to contradict itself here. Also, we’ll really expand upon the concept of personal use of most illicit drugs. That concept has had the most impact on how law enforcement has/had to treat criminals. Let’s talk about law enforcement... Result: Win. Law Enforcement: I think a concept that the general public, certainly myself, find themselves sometimes guilty of is that we seek to blame police officers for writing or interpreting laws with the intent to punish people for them. We have to remember that officers that we would deal with on a day to day basis job is to “serve and protect” and to enforce laws written by legislators as representatives of the “people.” I think we find ourselves in a pitfall sometimes when we look at officers as more than simple enforcers of the laws and protectors of the people. For the intent of prop 47 it seems to me it would be a win as they simply would not have to arrest suspects and could cite and release for crimes which would free up valuable time. Result: Win. The Taxpayer: Remember when I said it costs taxpayers $81,203 to house one person in prison for a year? Man, that’s a lot of bread. According to the Pubic Policy Institute of California the poverty line for a California family of 4 is $24,300 annually. Roughly 14% of Californian’s live below this. Do we agree the idea that a prisoner lives roughly 4 times higher than the poverty line (for a family of 4!) is ridiculous? Proposition addresses this and seeks to relieve this stress on the taxpayer. Result: Win.
0 Comments
|
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|