[AnyOtherIllness]

Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding, Criminal Penalties and Laws, Initiative Statute.

I can't figure this one out. It seems to spend a lot of money and do a lot of stuff. Can someone out there explain what's going on with Proposition 6?

[sandyacres]

Originally Posted by AnyOtherIllness

I can't figure this one out. It seems to spend a lot of money and do a lot of stuff. Can someone out there explain what's going on with Proposition 6?

I will be voting "No" on Proposition 6. The last thing the police need right now are more powers and less oversight. Until they learn that they work FOR THE PEOPLE and respect EVERY AMERICAN, I will be voting "No" on any initiative that bolsters police rights or protects them against citizen recourse.

I took the liberty of highlighting a few of the disastrous things this initiative does, including throwing families who live in public housing out on the street if any member of the family does not pass a government background check ounce a year. Oh, and they want to send 14 year olds to prison to get ganged raped instead of treating them and rehabilitating them. Very smart, compassionate stuff.

Sounds like like the repressed are at it again -- making everyone else "bad" so they can be "good" in God's eyes.

Here's the explanation from Wikipedia, which seems fairly comprehensive and reasonable at first glance:

----

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California.

Proposition 6 places additional penalties on crime. Supporters turned in over 750,000 signatures on April 25 to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot, and the measure was subsequently approved for the ballot.[1],[2]
Provisions of Prop 6

Proposition 6 would:

* Require new state spending on various criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. This funding would come from California's General Fund, reallocating funds currently spent on K-12 Education, Higher Education, Health and Human Services, Business, Transportation and Housing, and Environmental Protection [3]
* Deems any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court, thus, prosecuting these youth as adults.
* Necessitate that all occupants who are recipients of public housing subsidies submit to annual criminal background checks. If any occupant did not pass this criminal background check, the entire family would be removed from their housing.
* Increase penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons.
* Eliminate bail for undocumented individuals charged with violent or gang-related felonies.
* Establish as a crime the act of removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence.
* Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.[4]
* Require a 3/4 vote to ammend.
* Requires only a majority vote to add

Estimated fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 6's estimated costs:

* Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations.
* Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities.
* Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies.[5]

Funds to pay for these costs, should Prop. 6 pass, will come from California's general fund.[6]

In the current California state budget, $600 million dollars is set aside to assist with local law enforcement. If the initiative passes, an additional $350 million will be required to enforce some of its provisions.[7]
Supporters of Prop. 6

The official sponsors of the initiative are Mike Reynolds,[8], author of the original 3 Strikes Initiative, San Bernardino Fourth District Supervisor Gary Ovitt,[9] and California State Senator George Runner.[10],[11],[12]

Notable supporters of Prop. 6 include the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and a number of county and local sheriffs.
Arguments in favor of Prop. 6

On their website, the sponsors of Prop 6 say their measure[13]:


* "Creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shooting, meth distribution and victim intimidation."
* "Creates more effective and accountable intervention programs to stop young kids from joining gangs."
* "Helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities."
* "Prohibits bail for illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes."
* "Ensures funding for local police, sheriff, district attorneys and probation officers."

Consultants

The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was conducted by National Petition Management, at a cost of $1.022 million.[14]
Donors who support Prop. 6

The name of the official campaign committee supporting Prop. 6 is Committee to Take Back Our Neighborhoods.[15]

As of July 14, 2008, eight of the largest donors to Prop. 6 included:

* Henry Nicholas, $1,000,000
* Larry Rasmussen, $200,000
* Taxpayers for George Runner and George Runner for Senate 2008, together, $89,000
* Committee to Elect Gary Ovitt, $50,000
* The Golden State Bail Agents Association for Public Safety, $40,000
* California Association of Healthcare Underwriters, $35,000
* The Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, $25,000
* The Peace Officer Research Association, $25,000[16]

Nicholas, who was arraigned on June 16, 2008 on charges that include drug use, security fraud and conspiracy, has withdrawn from active support of the initiative, though the campaign has stated they will not return his $1,000,000 contribution. He has pled not guilty to the charges.[17] [18] [19] [20]
Opposition to Prop. 6

The officially-filed committee opposing Proposition 6 is known as No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility.

Notable members of the opposition coalition include the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles City Council, the League of Women Voters, California Church IMPACT and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.[21]
Arguments against Prop. 6

On their website opponents of Prop 6 say they disagree with the initiative because:

* It "divert(s) billions from California's schools, hospitals and childcare centers. By funding failed prison and policing policies, it would deepen the state's ongoing budget crisis."
* It "target(s) youth for adult incarceration, deeming any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court or housing in a youth prison."
* "Target(s) poor people, forcing recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to annual criminal background checks with the intention of withdrawing the housing subsidies of people with recent criminal convictions."
* "Target(s) undocumented immigrants by denying bail to those charged with violent or gang-related crimes and requiring local sheriffs to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and charges of people who are undocumented.
* Individuals who are not affiliated with gangs are listed in gang databases and would be falsely prosecuted under this provision.[22].
* Creates mandatory criminal background tests for recipients of public housing; those with any family member unable to pass this testing with a clear record would lose their housing.
* Half of Californians are in favor of cutting prison spending. only 3.6% of Californians are in favor of cutting health care funds and 5% in favor of cutting school funding. Proposition 6 will increase funding to prisons and cut funding to health care and schools[23].

Donors who oppose Prop. 6

The name of the official campaign committee opposing Prop. 6 is No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility Sponsored by the Ella Baker Center.[24]

As of September 5, 2008, the five largest donors against Prop. 6 consisted of the Ella Baker Center and four labor unions:

* California Teachers Association (Labor Union), $72,805
* California State Council of Service Employees/Service Employees International Union (Labor Union), $47,805
* California Federation of Teachers (Labor Union), $25,000
* Ella Baker Center, $25,000
* California Professional Firefighters (Labor Union), $1,950[25]

External links

* Yes on Prop 6, supporters of Prop. 6
* Defeat the Runner Initiative, opponents of Prop. 6.
* California Voter's Guide for Proposition 6
* Official language

[PFB1500]

Thanks for the great information.

[sandyacres]

Here's the link to the information: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...sition_6_(2008)

It's not listed on Wikipedia proper, but on their election site, Ballotpedia.org. Hope that helps!

Peace.

[juangoodman]

I will vote yes on this measure as long as it does not include any more taxes. I will not support any measure that increases taxes. The government takes way too much of our money and irresponsibly wastes it. NO MORE TAXES! Convict 14 yr old gang bangers who are convicted of a FELONY? Absolutely! How do you think they become career criminals? Tell that to the their victims. Our society has become very violent. Look at how we glamorize gangs and pimps. We label strains OG and think it's cool. It's NOT cool to be a gang member! Tell that to the victims. We promote this activity without even thinking about it in fashion, and entertainment. It's en vogue to flash signs and talk street, while innocent children and people die almost daily because of this activity. I am sick of the gang problem and our participation in its glamorization. Something must be done about it and it's not going to happen until we say enough and do something about it. Coddling criminals will not work. Tell that to the victims.

[mercury_collective]

Hell NOOOO!!!!

[Nailhead]

Didn't anybody get their California voter's guide? That makes all of these propositions pretty easy to understand. Basically it increases the penalties for various criminal offenses, meaning that people are locked up longer. It wouldn't surprise me if the California Prison Guard's union is behind this one. This will be a quick NO check for me

[dorknob]

Originally Posted by juangoodman

I will vote yes on this measure as long as it does not include any more taxes. I will not support any measure that increases taxes. The government takes way too much of our money and irresponsibly wastes it. NO MORE TAXES! Convict 14 yr old gang bangers who are convicted of a FELONY? Absolutely! How do you think they become career criminals? Tell that to the their victims. Our society has become very violent. Look at how we glamorize gangs and pimps. We label strains OG and think it's cool. It's NOT cool to be a gang member! Tell that to the victims. We promote this activity without even thinking about it in fashion, and entertainment. It's en vogue to flash signs and talk street, while innocent children and people die almost daily because of this activity. I am sick of the gang problem and our participation in its glamorization. Something must be done about it and it's not going to happen until we say enough and do something about it. Coddling criminals will not work. Tell that to the victims.

so lets solve the problem by enriching the prison guards union on our backs,no.

[RelaxationExpress]

Originally Posted by juangoodman

I will vote yes on this measure as long as it does not include any more taxes. I will not support any measure that increases taxes. The government takes way too much of our money and irresponsibly wastes it. NO MORE TAXES! Convict 14 yr old gang bangers who are convicted of a FELONY? Absolutely! How do you think they become career criminals? Tell that to the their victims. Our society has become very violent. Look at how we glamorize gangs and pimps. We label strains OG and think it's cool. It's NOT cool to be a gang member! Tell that to the victims. We promote this activity without even thinking about it in fashion, and entertainment. It's en vogue to flash signs and talk street, while innocent children and people die almost daily because of this activity. I am sick of the gang problem and our participation in its glamorization. Something must be done about it and it's not going to happen until we say enough and do something about it. Coddling criminals will not work. Tell that to the victims.

OK, so how does this get funded? No taxes to pay for it, but it's ok to take away funds from our Fire Depts, Schools, Public Health Services?

OG stands for Ocean Grown...

And to sneak into this law the ability to use heresay in court hearings? Jesus Frickin Christ...... ARE YOU NOT READING THIS

Sure the intent seems ok but this is how they LET YOU GIVE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS, scare you into giving up some liberty for some safety.....

Yes gangs are bad but I would rather have the struggles of gang violence than give up my rights when the government wants to try to convict me of something I didn't do based on the heresay of someone that is trying to get out of trouble for something they did!

[Nailhead]

Originally Posted by juangoodman

Convict 14 yr old gang bangers who are convicted of a FELONY? Absolutely! How do you think they become career criminals?

They become career criminals because anti tax nuts don't want to fund after school education programs to keep teenagers away from criminal activity, they don't want to pay for improved school systems, they don't want to pay for anything that might help a kid live a productive life. It's a deeply flawed philosophy to expect low taxes to be the answer to complex problems such as this. I'd be curious if you have even read through your California's voters guide yet.

[RelaxationExpress]

Originally Posted by Nailhead

They become career criminals because anti tax nuts don't want to fund after school education programs to keep teenagers away from criminal activity, they don't want to pay for improved school systems, they don't want to pay for anything that might help a kid live a productive life. It's a deeply flawed philosophy to expect low taxes to be the answer to complex problems such as this. I'd be curious if you have even read through your California's voters guide yet.

While I might agree with a lot of what you have said in other posts and I agree with some of what you say here, however I have to disagree with you on the tax issue.

CA has some of the highest personal income taxes in the country as is, maybe you could adjust some of this to the need for more infrastructure for the added population but it doesn't need to be increased. Our Schools have whined and cried about spending and budget cuts for years, but look at the % that goes to the bureaucracy compared to on actual student or teachers.

Then look at that beautiful, high tech, no expense spared school that can't open, you know why? No it's not because of budget restrictions or funding, the frickin' school was built on a toxic waste site and was deemed UNSAFE FOR CHILDREN!!! $$$$ Millions down the tubes and this was brought up before site selection.

Now look at the test scores of the kids of CA we have the 2nd worst public education system!! Yeah, I want to contribute MORE tax money to continue this lunacy. How about we hold these MFer's accountable for HOW they SPEND OUR F**KING MONEY... I don't need a school district to have a fancy headquarters, it should be a large commercial office building that was vacated and not able to be filled that they are able to negotiate an honest good long term lease at good price.

The way these idiots spend tax payer money like it is a never ending spout that they can just turn up anytime they need a little extra. No we don't need more taxes we need accountability. Start prosecuting wasteful spenders, lets see how long it takes to get our debt paid off and back to learning how to tighten a belt for a short term so that we never have to borrow again, if done correctly we could have NO personal income taxes and be able to pay for what is needed with a reasonable sale tax no more than it is now. Only reason they can't do that now is because nobody is willing to stop stupid spending, not good solid sound spending for those that need it, let's just stop the $100 toilet seats...

[Nailhead]

^Good points, and while on the subject of tax waste, I think prop 6 is a great example. Proposition 6 suggests it would crack down on gang crime, however, all it really is doing is adding time to criminals jail sentences.

Proposition 6 is basically throwing money at cops and the prison guard union and hoping they will help lower crime. All they will do is lock up criminals for longer time, at the expense of taxpayers. Nothing in proposition 6 will fund youth programs to keep kids out of criminal activities, nor does it have any rehabilitation programs.

Proposition 6 is based on the aging mentality that locking up people will reduce crime. It doesn't, and our overcrowded and incredibly expensive jail system is proof of that.

Please grab your California's voters guide and read for yourself! (you should have either gotten it in the mail recently, or will get it soon)

[Thraxz]

Yea, Thats a definite """NO'""".. How could anyone vote yes on this? This prop is totally harassing low income!!

* Deems any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court, thus, prosecuting these youth as adults.
* Necessitate that all occupants who are recipients of public housing subsidies submit to annual criminal background checks. If any occupant did not pass this criminal background check, the entire family would be removed from their housing.

Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.

"Target(s) undocumented immigrants by denying bail to those charged with violent or gang-related crimes and requiring local sheriffs to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and charges of people who are undocumented.
* Individuals who are not affiliated with gangs are listed in gang databases and would be falsely prosecuted under this provision.[22].
* Creates mandatory criminal background tests for recipients of public housing; those with any family member unable to pass this testing with a clear record would lose their housing.
* Half of Californians are in favor of cutting prison spending. only 3.6% of Californians are in favor of cutting health care funds and 5% in favor of cutting school funding. Proposition 6 will increase funding to prisons and cut funding to health care and schools[23].

Wild!!Immigrants and just plain all of us!! Protect your kids from Laws like this!!

[musicjunkie]

Yeah I agree that this shouldn't pass. As I'm sure everyone of color here knows, the police aren't usually the most friendly towards us...the last thing they need is the abilty to send misguided youths to jail...they need to be spending money on education and after school centers

[OakSmokeMJA]

Originally Posted by musicjunkie

Yeah I agree that this shouldn't pass. As I'm sure everyone of color here knows, the police aren't usually the most friendly towards us...the last thing they need is the abilty to send misguided youths to jail...they need to be spending money on education and after school centers

You're absolutely right musicjunkie,

Steven Walker of Minorities in Law Inforcement says that Prop 6 will overwhelm a prison system that is already largely occupied by African-American and Latino males by targeting these particular demographics more intensely.

Hell no on 6!

[b1joy2c]

Thanks to all the illuminating posts here. Really appreciate them. It gives me worthwhile reading to make my decision on this issue and without a couple of the posts I probably would not have made the right decision for me, the ballot books have always made mumbo jumbo of the issues and make me feel like I am reading a trick. Just because it says so, doesn't make it really so. Lots of legs on the spider called issues. Creepy, crawly and deceptive. Never thought I was slow until I had to make sense of these issues. Again thanks for giving me some clarity.

This is some baaaaaaaaaaaad shizer!

Originally Posted by sandyacres

I will be voting "No" on Proposition 6. The last thing the police need right now are more powers and less oversight. Until they learn that they work FOR THE PEOPLE and respect EVERY AMERICAN, I will be voting "No" on any initiative that bolsters police rights or protects them against citizen recourse.

I took the liberty of highlighting a few of the disastrous things this initiative does, including throwing families who live in public housing out on the street if any member of the family does not pass a government background check ounce a year. Oh, and they want to send 14 year olds to prison to get ganged raped instead of treating them and rehabilitating them. Very smart, compassionate stuff.

Sounds like like the repressed are at it again -- making everyone else "bad" so they can be "good" in God's eyes.

Here's the explanation from Wikipedia, which seems fairly comprehensive and reasonable at first glance:

----

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California.

Proposition 6 places additional penalties on crime. Supporters turned in over 750,000 signatures on April 25 to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot, and the measure was subsequently approved for the ballot.[1],[2]
Provisions of Prop 6

Proposition 6 would:

* Require new state spending on various criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. This funding would come from California's General Fund, reallocating funds currently spent on K-12 Education, Higher Education, Health and Human Services, Business, Transportation and Housing, and Environmental Protection [3]
* Deems any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court, thus, prosecuting these youth as adults.
* Necessitate that all occupants who are recipients of public housing subsidies submit to annual criminal background checks. If any occupant did not pass this criminal background check, the entire family would be removed from their housing.
* Increase penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons.
* Eliminate bail for undocumented individuals charged with violent or gang-related felonies.
* Establish as a crime the act of removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence.
* Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.[4]
* Require a 3/4 vote to ammend.
* Requires only a majority vote to add

Estimated fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 6's estimated costs:

* Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations.
* Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities.
* Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies.[5]

Funds to pay for these costs, should Prop. 6 pass, will come from California's general fund.[6]

In the current California state budget, $600 million dollars is set aside to assist with local law enforcement. If the initiative passes, an additional $350 million will be required to enforce some of its provisions.[7]
Supporters of Prop. 6

The official sponsors of the initiative are Mike Reynolds,[8], author of the original 3 Strikes Initiative, San Bernardino Fourth District Supervisor Gary Ovitt,[9] and California State Senator George Runner.[10],[11],[12]

Notable supporters of Prop. 6 include the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and a number of county and local sheriffs.
Arguments in favor of Prop. 6

On their website, the sponsors of Prop 6 say their measure[13]:


* "Creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shooting, meth distribution and victim intimidation."
* "Creates more effective and accountable intervention programs to stop young kids from joining gangs."
* "Helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities."
* "Prohibits bail for illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes."
* "Ensures funding for local police, sheriff, district attorneys and probation officers."

Consultants

The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was conducted by National Petition Management, at a cost of $1.022 million.[14]
Donors who support Prop. 6

The name of the official campaign committee supporting Prop. 6 is Committee to Take Back Our Neighborhoods.[15]

As of July 14, 2008, eight of the largest donors to Prop. 6 included:

* Henry Nicholas, $1,000,000
* Larry Rasmussen, $200,000
* Taxpayers for George Runner and George Runner for Senate 2008, together, $89,000
* Committee to Elect Gary Ovitt, $50,000
* The Golden State Bail Agents Association for Public Safety, $40,000
* California Association of Healthcare Underwriters, $35,000
* The Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, $25,000
* The Peace Officer Research Association, $25,000[16]

Nicholas, who was arraigned on June 16, 2008 on charges that include drug use, security fraud and conspiracy, has withdrawn from active support of the initiative, though the campaign has stated they will not return his $1,000,000 contribution. He has pled not guilty to the charges.[17] [18] [19] [20]
Opposition to Prop. 6

The officially-filed committee opposing Proposition 6 is known as No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility.

Notable members of the opposition coalition include the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles City Council, the League of Women Voters, California Church IMPACT and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.[21]
Arguments against Prop. 6

On their website opponents of Prop 6 say they disagree with the initiative because:

* It "divert(s) billions from California's schools, hospitals and childcare centers. By funding failed prison and policing policies, it would deepen the state's ongoing budget crisis."
* It "target(s) youth for adult incarceration, deeming any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court or housing in a youth prison."
* "Target(s) poor people, forcing recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to annual criminal background checks with the intention of withdrawing the housing subsidies of people with recent criminal convictions."
* "Target(s) undocumented immigrants by denying bail to those charged with violent or gang-related crimes and requiring local sheriffs to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and charges of people who are undocumented.
* Individuals who are not affiliated with gangs are listed in gang databases and would be falsely prosecuted under this provision.[22].
* Creates mandatory criminal background tests for recipients of public housing; those with any family member unable to pass this testing with a clear record would lose their housing.
* Half of Californians are in favor of cutting prison spending. only 3.6% of Californians are in favor of cutting health care funds and 5% in favor of cutting school funding. Proposition 6 will increase funding to prisons and cut funding to health care and schools[23].

Donors who oppose Prop. 6

The name of the official campaign committee opposing Prop. 6 is No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility Sponsored by the Ella Baker Center.[24]

As of September 5, 2008, the five largest donors against Prop. 6 consisted of the Ella Baker Center and four labor unions:

* California Teachers Association (Labor Union), $72,805
* California State Council of Service Employees/Service Employees International Union (Labor Union), $47,805
* California Federation of Teachers (Labor Union), $25,000
* Ella Baker Center, $25,000
* California Professional Firefighters (Labor Union), $1,950[25]

External links

* Yes on Prop 6, supporters of Prop. 6
* Defeat the Runner Initiative, opponents of Prop. 6.
* California Voter's Guide for Proposition 6
* Official language