November 2006 ballot measures

[Starla]

California

Prop 1A. Prevents diversion of gas tax revenue meant for roads. - Yes
Prop 1B. $19.925 billion bonds for road projects - Yes
Prop 1C. $2.85 billion bonds for low-income housing - No
Prop 1D. $10.416 billion bonds for public school facilities - No
Prop 1E. $4.09 billion bonds for levee repairs and flood control projects - Yes
Prop 83. Increases penalties for sex crimes. - Yes
Prop 84. $5.388 billion bonds for water and conservation projects. - Yes
Prop 85. Requires waiting period and parental notification for abortion by minor. - No
Prop 86. $2.60 per pack cigarette surtax with funds for hospitals. - No
Prop 87. Spends $4 billion for alternative energy research, profit tax on energy companies. - No
Prop 88. Establishes a $50 parcel tax for schools. - No
Prop 89. Provides public funding for candidates that agree to spending limits. - No
Prop 90. Restricts eminent domain for private projects, requires compensation for regulatory takings. - Yes

[Starla]

Prop 83. Increases penalties for sex crimes

Why would anyone vote NO to this?

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Prop 83. Increases penalties for sex crimes

Why would anyone vote NO to this?

More info...

QUESTION

Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?

BACKGROUND

Currently, sex offenses are punished according to the offense and its severity. Penalties range from a year in jail, fines, and prison terms up to life. Offenders are required to register with local law enforcement agencies. Since 2004, when Megan's Law was adopted in California, the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders has been made publicly available.

Certain convicted sex offenders are barred from residing within one half mile of a school. The Global Positioning System (GPS) monitors those parolees considered high risk (about 1,000 statewide).

Some offenders are classified as Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) and are committed to mental hospitals (725 statewide).

THE PROPOSAL
(From the LAO analysis)

Increase Penalties for Sex Offenses. This measure increases the penalties for specified sex offenses. It does this in several ways. In some cases:

* It broadens the definition of certain sex offenses. For example, the measure expands the definition of aggravated sexual assault of a child to ******* offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim, rather than the ten years required under current law.
* It provides for longer penalties for specified sex offenses. For example, it expands the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison to ******* assault to commit rape during the commission of a first-degree burglary.
* It prohibits probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.
* It eliminates early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses (for example, habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape).
* It extends parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.

These changes would result in longer prison and parole terms for the affected offenders.

Finally, this measure increases court-imposed fees currently charged to offenders who are required to register as sex offenders.

Require GPS Devices for Registered Sex Offenders. Generally under this measure, individuals who have been convicted of a felony sex offense that requires registration and have been sent to prison would be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives.

The CDCR would be authorized to collect fees from affected sex offenders to cover the costs of GPS monitoring. The amount of fees collected from individual offenders would vary depending on their ability to pay.

Limit Where Registered Sex Offenders May Live. This measure bars any person required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet (about two-fifths of a mile) of any school or park. A violation of this provision would be a misdemeanor offense, as well as a parole violation for parolees. The longer current law restriction of one-half mile (2,640 feet) for specified high-risk sex offenders on parole would remain in effect. In addition, the measure authorizes local governments to further expand these residency restrictions.

Change SVP Law. This measure generally makes more sex offenders eligible for an SVP commitment. It does this by (1) reducing from two to one the number of prior victims of sexually violent offenses that qualify an offender for an SVP commitment and (2) making additional prior offenses--such as certain crimes committed by a person while a juvenile--"countable" for purposes of an SVP commitment. The measure also requires that SVPs be committed by the court to a state mental hospital for an undetermined period of time rather than the renewable two-year commitment provided for under existing law. As under current law, once an offender had received a commitment as an SVP, he or she could later be released from a state hospital by the courts if (1) DMH determined the individual should no longer be held or (2) the offender successfully petitioned a court for release.

The measure also changes the standard for release of SVPs from a state mental hospital. For example, current law generally requires DMH to examine the mental condition of a sex offender each year. This measure specifically requires DMH, as part of this annual review, to examine whether a person being held in a state hospital as an SVP still meets the definition of an SVP, whether release is in the best interest of the person, and whether conditions could be imposed at time of release that would adequately protect the community. The impact of these changes on the number of SVPs is unknown.

FISCAL EFFECT

The increase in prison population due to convictions for more offenses, longer sentences and decreasing parole, could be a significant expense, both in extended time and possible capital outlay for more facilities. Increased populations in jails and prisons would also impact local governments.

The cost of universal GPS monitoring will be considerable. These costs ******* the devices for an estimated 90,000 sexual predators now living in California (all crimes, for the past 70+ years) and the cost of tracking offenders in the community. This could be upwards of $100 million annually. [LAO Analysis p. 4 #3] It is unclear if some of these costs would be born by local governments. New court and parolee fees would offset some of the costs.

Additional costs would be attributed to referrals of Sexually Violent Predators, evaluations and additional incarceration in Mental Health facilities. Additional costs could come from the need to build more such institutions to accommodate the overflow.

Court costs for additional SVP commitment and possible increased arrests would fall on state and local governments. This may be offset by a decrease in arrests due to longer sentencing.

----------------------------------------

I would vote no.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by To Starla

California
Prop 1C. $2.85 billion bonds for low-income housing - No
Prop 1D. $10.416 billion bonds for public school facilities - No
Prop 83. Increases penalties for sex crimes. - Yes

No to money for poor and schools but instead buy and equip expensive GPS satellite tracking systems on all sex offenders [and how does just knowing a sex offender's location prevent a sex crime? -- oh wait, I know-- we buy all our children in the state special electronic collars that sound an alarm if any sex offender, assuming he didn't just take off his expensive GPS monitor off (why would he want to do that, anyways?), whenever he/she gets within 25 feet of one]. This is just a costly boondoggle to provide a false sense of security, in a state that already has some of the toughest sex crime laws in the country, that I doubt will actually do much to prevent sex crimes.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I know, it's pretty great.

And Texas has "Vote and Vax"...

Houston Halts Flu Shots After Republicans Complain
Wall Street Journal
(Not a link because you need a paid subscription to view it.)

HOUSTON -- The city has stopped offering free flu shots at early voting sites after Republicans alleged it was a ploy by the mayor to lure more Democrats to the polls.

The vaccinations, for people 50 and over, had been offered at early voting sites in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Health officials said they were targeting medically underserved areas, not Democratic neighborhoods.

"There was no political motive whatsoever to do it," said Mayor Bill White, the former head of the Texas Democratic Party. He said he ended the program Wednesday, after it provided 1,300 flu shots over three days, because he didn't want "to spend more money in defending a baseless lawsuit than we're giving away in vaccine or allow anybody to question the integrity of the political process."

But some Republicans accused Mr. White of using the program to boost Democrats' election prospects. Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill said the offer violated a state law that bars people from accepting anything in exchange for a vote. "I think the program was completely motivated by a plan to turn out Democratic voters," Mr. Woodfill said.

A $320,000 grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded "Vote and Vax" flu-shot drives in Houston and 24 other U.S. cities, according to the health advocacy organization. The 10-year-old program targets communities where relatively few people get flu shots.

Foundation officials say the program is a convenient way for older people, who are especially vulnerable to the disease, to get vaccinated from a disease that kills 32,000 people over 65 every year.

Douglas Shenson, the director of the flu-shot program for the foundation, said he does not know of problems with the program in any other city. "It's an entirely nonpartisan and nonpolitical activity," Dr. Shenson said. "It's not a get-out-the-vote campaign. It's a get-out-the-vaccine campaign."

Polls are an ideal place to access large numbers of people who need the vaccine. "I'm disappointed this has happened," he said.

Stephen Williams, Houston's health director, said residents did not have to vote to get the shots, and that he consulted with the county clerk to ensure the program was legal. He said he hoped to get permission to offer the remaining 1,600 flu shots in less controversial locations.

[Trotskilicious]

They're right. All crybabies get flu shots. All crybabies are Democrats. Therefore Democrats get flu shots.

By the way, you should probably post

Texas used to give out flu shots at early voting sites until the Republicans shut that down because they claimed it was a ploy to lure more Democrats to the polls.

Then you could provide a link to the story as proof. I know Ctrl-V is a lot easier than thinking but it's annoying to have to scroll through news stories you can sum up in a sentence.

[Travis Meeks]

New Jersey
Three amendments from the legislature.
Public Question 1. Dedicates state revenue to reduce property taxes. YES
Public Question 2. Dedicates fraction of state environment funds to recreational areas. NO
Public Question 3. Increases fraction of gas tax dedicated to transportation projects. NO

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Then you could provide a link to the story as proof.

But, uh....

Originally Posted by BlueStar

(Not a link because you need a paid subscription to view it.)

[Tonight]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

More info...

THE PROPOSAL
(From the LAO analysis)

Increase Penalties for Sex Offenses. This measure increases the penalties for specified sex offenses. It does this in several ways. In some cases:

* It broadens the definition of certain sex offenses. For example, the measure expands the definition of aggravated sexual assault of a child to ******* offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim, rather than the ten years required under current law.
* It provides for longer penalties for specified sex offenses. For example, it expands the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison to ******* assault to commit rape during the commission of a first-degree burglary.
* It prohibits probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.

Which, I am all for. Why should the severity of punishment be lessened just because you raped your spouse, for instance. The crime is the same. Penalty should be equal, but it's not.

* It eliminates early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses (for example, habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape).
* It extends parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.

Why wouldn't we want this?! Personally I don't think ANYONE who is an habitual sex offender should be eligible for parole.

Finally, this measure increases court-imposed fees currently charged to offenders who are required to register as sex offenders.

Require GPS Devices for Registered Sex Offenders. Generally under this measure, individuals who have been convicted of a felony sex offense that requires registration and have been sent to prison would be monitored by GPS devices while on parole and for the remainder of their lives.

Good. They should be monitored if let out.

The CDCR would be authorized to collect fees from affected sex offenders to cover the costs of GPS monitoring. The amount of fees collected from individual offenders would vary depending on their ability to pay.

They *should* pay for their own crimes. It will come out of their pockets and less out of tax dollars.

Limit Where Registered Sex Offenders May Live. This measure bars any person required to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet (about two-fifths of a mile) of any school or park. A violation of this provision would be a misdemeanor offense, as well as a parole violation for parolees. The longer current law restriction of one-half mile (2,640 feet) for specified high-risk sex offenders on parole would remain in effect. In addition, the measure authorizes local governments to further expand these residency restrictions.

Nothing wrong with this.

The measure also changes the standard for release of SVPs from a state mental hospital. For example, current law generally requires DMH to examine the mental condition of a sex offender each year. This measure specifically requires DMH, as part of this annual review, to examine whether a person being held in a state hospital as an SVP still meets the definition of an SVP, whether release is in the best interest of the person, and whether conditions could be imposed at time of release that would adequately protect the community. The impact of these changes on the number of SVPs is unknown.

Point blank, I don't care about the welfare of sex offenders, and what impacts their lives. I haven't seen stats on how many sex offenders find complete recovery of their mental illnesses or addictions, enough to be considered safe to be released into society to begin with.

FISCAL EFFECT

The increase in prison population due to convictions for more offenses, longer sentences and decreasing parole, could be a significant expense, both in extended time and possible capital outlay for more facilities. Increased populations in jails and prisons would also impact local governments.

And California prisons wouldn't be so overpopulated if they didn't put people in jail for lesser crimes. Loosen the 3 strikes law, which is responsible for the overpopulation to begin with. Sex offenders belong in jail....as opposed to the person who committed a petty crime sitting in jail for a year for ie: receiving stolen property, driving on suspended license, petty theft.....et

The cost of universal GPS monitoring will be considerable. These costs ******* the devices for an estimated 90,000 sexual predators now living in California (all crimes, for the past 70+ years) and the cost of tracking offenders in the community. This could be upwards of $100 million annually. [LAO Analysis p. 4 #3] It is unclear if some of these costs would be born by local governments. New court and parolee fees would offset some of the costs.

And I'm willing to see just how well that goes, enough to vote yes to it. Place stiff penalties on offenders who don't pay to contribute to their own devices. We're talking about protecting our children here....

I would vote no.

I generally value your opinions on many things, but I completely disagree.

( aka To Starla )

[Tonight]

Originally Posted by Debaser

No to money for poor

No, it's No to building more low income housing in nice neighborhoods for the low income people to come in a trash it and tear it up, bring crime into the area, lowering property values. (seeing this go on first hand it sucks) It's not that I don't care about the poor. I would rather see more homeless shelters that ******* programs to help people get educations and jobs, then build more housing for people to live off the govt in for many years to come. (section 8)

and schools

And how many propositions have we had for monies to go to the public schools, and the money doesn't go to them? I watched a total of 9 schools in Oakland close in a year....where money was apparently supposed to be going to those schools. I'm wondering where that money is actually went. I've voted yes in the past, even though I don't like the public school system.

but instead buy and equip expensive GPS satellite tracking systems on all sex offenders [and how does just knowing a sex offender's location prevent a sex crime?

It doesn't directly, but indirectly it seeks to isolate these people committing these crimes. It's not going to be %100 percent effective. If someone doesn't care about what they do, and they commit another crime with the tracking device on them, then the system would be to blame for releasing these offenders in the first place.
It will keep them away from schools, parks, playgrounds, and other places where children converge. Annnd as I said above I'm willing to vote yes on this to see how effective it is.

-- oh wait, I know-- we buy all our children in the state special electronic collars that sound an alarm if any sex offender assuming he didn't just take off his expensive GPS monitor off (why would he want to do that, anyways?), whenever he/she gets within 25 feet of one]. This is just a costly boondoggle to provide a false sense of security, in a state that already has some of the toughest sex crime laws in the country, that I doubt will actually do much to prevent sex crimes.

The tracker doesn't provide *me* with a false sense of security (I'm sure it will for many), but I believe this is worth the experiment. If california is releasing habitual sex offenders, then they don't have the strictest penalties in place. As mentioned in another post, I don't think they should ever be released. I have zero tolerance or pity for these people. Why are we not concerned with the impact these crimes have on victims, rather than how penalties will effect the lives of these offenders?
Do I want the offender's life to be hell? yes I do...
(aka To starla )

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

But, uh....

So what.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Tonight

No, it's No to building more low income housing in nice neighborhoods for the low income people to come in a trash it and tear it up, bring crime into the area, lowering property values. (seeing this go on first hand it sucks) It's not that I don't care about the poor. I would rather see more homeless shelters that ******* programs to help people get educations and jobs, then build more housing for people to live off the govt in for many years to come. (section 8)

And how many propositions have we had for monies to go to the public schools, and the money doesn't go to them? I watched a total of 9 schools in Oakland close in a year....where money was apparently supposed to be going to those schools. I'm wondering where that money is actually went. I've voted yes in the past, even though I don't like the public school system.

Those are valid concerns and I won't argue with them. I'm voting yes because I believe more good than bad will come of it.

Originally Posted by Tonight

It doesn't directly, but indirectly it seeks to isolate these people committing these crimes. It's not going to be %100 percent effective. If someone doesn't care about what they do, and they commit another crime with the tracking device on them, then the system would be to blame for releasing these offenders in the first place.
It will keep them away from schools, parks, playgrounds, and other places where children converge. Annnd as I said above I'm willing to vote yes on this to see how effective it is.

The tracker doesn't provide *me* with a false sense of security (I'm sure it will for many), but I believe this is worth the experiment. If california is releasing habitual sex offenders, then they don't have the strictest penalties in place. As mentioned in another post, I don't think they should ever be released. I have zero tolerance or pity for these people. Why are we not concerned with the impact these crimes have on victims, rather than how penalties will effect the lives of these offenders?
Do I want the offender's life to be hell? yes I do...
(aka To starla )

This tracker system is going to be crazy expensive. Over $100 million per year and it is not clear who is going to pay for this (state? counties? city?). There must be a more cost-effective solution than this or that money could be better spent elsewhere. I don't think that California is releasing habitual sex offenders (has there been a rash of sex crimes I've missed on the news?). Sexual predators and rapists already get 25 to life in prison. Now this bill wants to give longer sentences to less dangerous people that just have child porn. I have no qualms about that sentiment, but when I take into account our overcrowded prisons and out of control prison costs (California now makes deals with other states and pays them to house their overflow of prisoners), I start to think that this is counterproductive. Then there's the increase in yardage that a sex offender can live within a school (increased to 2,000 from 1320) and the addition of parks, too, that will basically mean that all sex offenders will have to move out of urban areas. This may backfire as sex offenders go live and gather rural areas where there is less law enforcement presence and barely any psychiatric counseling or other social services designed to help them control themselves available.

[lohengrin]

why dont they take all the idle niggers and give them a beeper and a shotgun and pay them to give perverts a hard time the way they do in jail for free

it would probably be cheaper

[Tonight]

Originally Posted by lohengrin

why dont they take all the idle niggers and give them a beeper and a shotgun and pay them to give perverts a hard time the way they do in jail for free

it would probably be cheaper

Well Debaser, we could always send all the sex offenders up to Richmond....this guy is on to something.