The nation is abuzz
with all things Donald and Hillary, and the anticipated outcome of the
presidential election. However, there are other important issues at stake this
November. State propositions that affect not only you, but also the criminal
justice system – like sentencing, marijuana use, gun control, and
the death penalty – are up for vote in a few weeks.
And with
four ballot cards to get through by November 8th, this Quarterly
Update is dedicated to identifying and simplifying the criminal-justice related
measures on the ballot. Below is a rough, cliff-notes-like version of the
Propositions and Measures certain to affect California’s criminal justice
system. Your California
vote is important and it is even more important that you know what you are
voting for.
California
Ballot Measures
Proposition 57: Sentencing
and Juvenile Filings
Proposition 57
supports increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for those convicted of
nonviolent crimes. This proposition would also give the judge, not the
prosecutors, the ability to decide whether to try juveniles as adults in court,
eliminating what is known as “direct file.”
The measure is
intended to focus resources towards rehabilitation, rather than additional
imprisonment, purports to save money by reducing prison expenditures, and is
being promoted by Gov. Jerry Brown.
How would the inmate early
release work? Inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes who have served the full
sentence for their primary offense as well as passed a screening for public
security, would become eligible for parole and early release. The individual
would be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for
his or her primary offense. Additionally, the Department of Corrections would
have the authority to award credits for good behavior and approved
rehabilitative or educational achievements. As of early 2016, over 25,000
convicted, nonviolent felons would be eligible to seek parole and early release
under proposition 57. Gov. Brown estimates that under Prop. 57, about 1,300 new
inmates would qualify for earlier parole each year.
The second part of
Prop. 57 involves the decision-making authority when charging juveniles as
adults. Presently, prosecutors make this decision in a process called “direct
file.” If this proposition is passed, that decision would instead fall on the
judge in deciding whether to try a juvenile as young as 14 years old as an
adult. Supporters believe that fewer children will be tried in adult courts.
The measure is opposed
by most district attorneys and other law enforcement officials, who argue that
it would apply to prisoners convicted of many felonies that are actually “violent”
but are not included in the state’s official definition of a violent crime.
Opponents also worry that too much power would be given to prison officials and
parole boards, while reducing prosecutors’ leverage to reach plea deals with
defendants.
Death Penalty:
Proposition 62 and Proposition 66
Since the death
penalty law was enacted in 1978, 930 convicted felons have been sentenced to death
in California. However, only 13 have been killed and the last execution
occurred in 2006, over ten years ago. As a result, supporters and opponents of
capital punishment agree that the system is broken. Thus, these two competing
propositions aim to either repeal the death penalty & replace it with life
without the possibility of parole (Prop. 62) or to shorten the time period of
legal challenges to those facing the death penalty (Prop. 66).
Proposition 62: Repealing the Death Penalty
Proposition 62 would
repeal the death penalty in California. This proposition would replace the
death penalty with a life sentence without the opportunity for parole. If
passed it would apply retroactively to those already on death row.
Proposition 62 would
also require all persons convicted of murder to work while in prison in order
to gain funds and pay debts to the victims of their crimes. Up to 60% of
inmates' earnings would be deducted from their wages in order to pay this debt.
Financial analysts for
the state say that if Proposition 62 passes, it would save California about
$150 million per year from the $122 billion state general fund budget. The
savings would come primarily from reduced costs for trials and legal appeals.
Proposition 66:
Quickening the Legal Process of the Death Penalty
Proposition 66’s goal
is to speed up the appeals process for death penalty cases by requiring habeas
corpus petitions to be completed within five years. This would be done by
expanding which courts and attorneys work on the cases – putting trial courts
in charge of habeas corpus petitions instead of the Supreme Court.
Proposition 66 also
changes the qualifications required to represent convicted inmates, requiring
attorneys who take any criminal appeals to also take death penalty appeals.
Given the possibility of ineffective assistance of counsel if this is passed,
it is unclear how this portion of the proposition would be enforced.
Similar to Proposition
62, Proposition 66 would also require all persons convicted of murder to work
while in prison in order to gain funds and pay debts to the victims of their
crimes. However, up to 70% of inmates' earnings would be deducted from their
wages in order to pay this debt.
Finally, the measure
would allow death row inmates to be kept at any state prison. Currently, all
male inmates are housed in segregated single cells at San Quentin State Prison.
Proposition 66 proponents argue that this level of security costs too much and
is not necessary.
Opponents of the
measure express concern that speeding up appeals increases the risk of executing
an innocent person. They also argue that capital punishment is unethical and
the legal injection process is broken and unreliable.
Compatibility
Proposition 62 and
proposition 66 are not compatible with each other. If they are both voted through,
the proposition with the most yes votes will supersede the other.
Proposition 63: Gun
Control
In a nutshell, Proposition 63
creates stricter checks on the sale and purchase of ammunition and includes
other components regarding firearms.
First, the measure would require
individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to pass a background check through
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and buy a 4-year permit which could cost up to
a maximum of $50. Large capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) would be
banned. Prop 63 also removes the ownership exemption for pre-2000 owners of
large-capacity magazines, and owners must dispose of them. Failure to comply
would lead to an infraction charge.
The measure would also create a
process for newly convicted felons to turn in their guns.
Also, a court process would be set up
to ensure the removal of guns from prohibited individuals who have failed
background checks and/or failed to comply with ammunition regulations. The
measure would require courts to assign probation officers to report on what
offenders have done with their firearms.
Additionally, under this proposition,
ammunition dealers would have to
obtain licenses to sell ammunition and would be required to check with DOJ that
individuals seeking to buy ammunition are not prohibited persons. Ammunition
sales will need to take place through a licensed ammunition dealer. Furthermore,
Prop. 63 would still require online and out-of-state purchases to be delivered
in state and picked up in person, and would move the date of effect forward
from July 2019 to January 2018.
Finally, Proposition 63 would change
the penalty for theft of firearms from a misdemeanor to a felony. And, individuals
previously convicted of a misdemeanor for the theft of a firearm would be
prohibited from owning firearms for ten years. The new law would also increase
penalties for people who fail to report lost or stolen guns.
Proposition 64:
Marijuana
Proposition 64 would
make it legal in California for adults over age 21 to possess up to an ounce of
marijuana and grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes. It would also
regulate recreational marijuana businesses and impose taxes.
What
will be legal: smoking would be permitted in private homes and businesses
licensed for on-sight marijuana consumption; the possession of up 28.5 grams of
marijuana and 8 grams of concentrated marijuana; the growing of up to six
plants in private homes – as long as the area is locked and not visible from a
public place.
What
won’t be legal: smoking while operating any type of vehicle; smoking anywhere
tobacco is prohibited and in all public places; possession on school grounds,
in day care centers and youth centers when children are present.
How will it be
regulated? The Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation would be renamed the
Bureau of Marijuana Control and would be held responsible for regulating and
licensing any and all marijuana businesses
How will it be taxed?
Two new taxes would be created – one levied on cultivation and the other on
retail price. Tax revenue would be spent on drug research, drug rehabilitation
treatment, enforcement, education, youth programs, and preventing environmental
damage resulting from illegal marijuana production.
What are the
penalties? Anyone one under the age of 18 convicted of use or possession will
be sentenced to drug education or a counseling program and given community
service. Selling marijuana without a license will be punishable by up to 6
months in prison and/or a fine of $500.
Individuals serving
sentences for activities made legal under Proposition 64 will become eligible
for resentencing.
Fact to take note of:
as of 2016, both recreational and medical uses of marijuana are still illegal
under federal law.
San Francisco
Propositions
This year, San
Francisco voters also have two criminal-justice related propositions to
consider. They are described below.
Proposition G: Charter
Amendment Concerning Police Oversight
Proposition G supports
the renaming of the Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) to the Department of
Police Accountability (DPA), and would give DPA the authority to access certain
records and documents in order to review police policies and incidents
involving use of force. Proposition G also allows the DPA to submit their
budget directly to the mayor, surpassing the police commission.
Proposition R: Neighborhood
Crime Unit
Proposition R supports
the creation of Neighborhood Crime Units in major city police departments.
These units would dedicate their efforts to preventing crimes that are harmful
to neighborhood safety and consist of 3% of all sworn officers, provided there
is a minimum of 1,971 sworn police officers working in the city (a prerequisite).
The measure would force police to create this special Neighborhood Crime Unit
that would respond to both 911 and 311 calls, while focusing on offenses
including robberies, break-ins, bike thefts, vandalism, aggressive panhandling
and blocking sidewalks with tents.
A vote against
Proposition R supports leaving the efforts toward neighborhood crime as a
responsibility shared equally among all police officers in the district, with
no dedicated task force.
Conclusion
In order for a
proposition to pass in California, a simple majority is required - more Yes
votes than No votes. There is no priority based on location or size of
location.
A
proposition is locked in once it is passed – the legislature cannot repeal a
passed proposition without another vote by the voters of California.
This
is why it is important to stay up to date on these issues and be well informed
on voter-initiated ballot measures. Your vote makes a difference and the
outcome of these measures will affect you and your community directly.
For more information on how these laws may affect you, contact Jayne Law Group.
Comments
Post a Comment