 "Photo: MCT Campus")
As the crime rate increases in the San Diego State area, especially in the beginning of the semester, police officers, attorneys and others are increasingly trying to find ways to decrease both the number of crimes that already occur and increase the ability to prevent others.
This November, Proposition 6 will be on the ballot to determine whether Californians will pay for major revisions to the law and public safety programs related to gang violence.
Proposition 6, or the Police and Law Enforcement Funding and Criminal Penalties and Laws Initiative Statute, will require funding of a minimum of $965 million each year that will be used for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, juvenile probation facilities and adult probation. It will also make 30 revisions to the California Criminal Law in that many gang-related offenses will have increased penalties for violations of related injunctions and felons carrying guns.
According to some, the proposal will increase public safety in the state. Jana Saastad, spokesperson for the pro-Proposition 6 group, Safe neighborhoods Act: Yes on Prop. 6, said the legislation is well thought out.
"Proposition 6 takes on a comprehensive and balanced approach to California's gang violence."
She said the proposition will increase penalties for street crimes and gangs as well as provide for prevention and intervention for teens involved in gangs.
"Can't arrest your way out of it," she said. "You also have to intervene for youth."
Another key supporter of the proposition is the California Police Chiefs Association. Fresno Chief of Police Jerry Dyer, the association's president, said such funding has not been a priority lately.
"Over the course of five years or so, California's budget has gone up for all areas - the only one that hasn't is local public safety programs," Dyer said.
He added that public safety funding has actually been reduced by 11.9 percent.
"Going through strategies are difficult when you're not sure whether funding will be available from year to year," Dyer said.
Another supporter is the California District Attorney Association, including Chief Executive Officer Scott Thorpe.
"Proposition 6," he said, "deals most comprehensively with intervention, prevention and accountability." The three components, he added, have traditionally been treated as separate issues.
Other supporters of the proposition are Crime Victims United, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association and San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis.
According to some other Californians, though, the proposal will be the worst thing to happen for California, especially during the current budget crisis.
Lindsay Shoemaker, a spokesperson for the No on 6 campaign, said the timing is just not right. She said the proposition will decrease spending for schools, foster care, health care and after school programs.
Saastad said that's not true.
"Section 13 specifically states that it would not take money away from education," Saastad said.
Shoemaker added that the proposal would mostly suppress and not rehabilitate. According to the group's Web site, Californians already spend more than four times more per prisoner than per public school student." The site also said that Proposition 6 will force the government to continue spending even if the programs don't work.
"Prop. 6 is nothing more than a raid on the state treasury being marketed with public safety slogans," the Web site added.
Glenn Baches, policy adviser of the Ella Baker Center, an Oakland-based group that pushes justice in urban America, is also opposed to it.
"With our economy in crisis, now is not the time," Baches said. He said the proposition will place almost a billion dollars a year in "autopilot spending."
"It will be seizing a huge amount of the budget to incarcerate people and make more prisons." Another opponent to the proposition is the Californian Teachers Association. Mike Myslinski, a spokesperson for the association, said there is nowhere for the money to come from and is worried that dollars will be spent on unproven programs.
"The majority would go toward a program that the state legislation found to have no identifiable goals and no identifiable results," Myslinski said. He added that, according to the 2006 to 07 results, violent crime has decreased 3.2 percent, and from 1992 to 2006, that same figure reduced by 43.7 percent. Other opponents to the proposal are the California Children's Defense Fund, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and Congresswoman Barbara Lee.
ON THE BALLOT
- If passed, the measure will likely cost in excess of a half a billion dollars annually for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as increase costs for prison and parole operations, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office.
- Introduced to the November 2008 ballot by State Senate Republican Caucus Chairperson Sen. George Runner
- Runner is the same senator who wrote Jessica's Law
- The bill is funded mainly by Henry T. Nicholas III, a communications technology businessman and co-founder of Broadcom Corporation.
- Nicholas was recently indicted on felony drug, conspiracy and securities fraud charges
- Deem juveniles who are 14 years of age or older and convicted of "gang-related" felonies as unfit for trial in a juvenile court
- Deny bail to undocumented workers charged with "gang-related" felonies
- Invoke harsher penalties for crimes associated with gang violence
Be the first to comment on this article!