Propositions part four
Still reading, still researching. Here's the ones for today.
Proposition 5 is a measure to promote reform for non-violent drug related crimes instead of jail time. Since I'm writing so much the past few days I think I'll just quote knaveofhearts on this one as he's already said pretty much everything I thought of.
Proposition 5 would do a lot: expand drug treatment, modify parole supervision, allow inmates to earn time off for rehab, reduce penalties for marijuana possession, and other stuff. There are three current drug treatment diversion programs: one that looks a lot like traffic school, another for probation in lieu of jail time for lesser charges (I think!), and another program similar to the second one for worse offenders (again, I think). This proposition would give them more money. The changes to parole include term reduction for drug offenders without serious crimes on their records, and longer terms for violent or serious felonies. The changes to rehab basically encourage prisoners to seek treatment while in prison. Possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana by an adult or a minor would become an infraction instead of a misdemeanor. The arguments here are both pretty well-written. They contradict each other (go figure!) but they're readable and coherent. If the rebuttal to argument against can be believed, 80% of the people in California prisons have a problem with substance abuse. That just boggles my mind. Maybe, just maybe, those people don't belong in expensive prisons. Are treatment programs less expensive? I think so based on what I've read elsewhere. I do like the idea of spending $2.5 billion less on prisons over time. Wow. I'm voting "yes".
I'd just like to add that in the argument against it talked about how it would let those who commited acts of child abuse and domestic violence back on the street. Doesn't that kind of go against the whole non-violent thing?
Proposition 6 is for police and law enforcement funding. The arguments against claim all kinds of good things. However here is why I am voting no.
The proposal puts restrictions on the money that comes in from this, stating that set amounts can only be spent on specific things. It does nothing to help the programs that are already in place. It doesn't guarantee that it's going to put more police on the streets. It establishes a whole new (as far as I'm concerned useless) division.
The proposition itself says that there has been a decrease in crime between 1999 and 2006, but 447 more homicides total. However it does not take into account the increase in population, and does not state this number as "per capita". If someone were to look into this they might find that the rate has dropped. It states one of the reasons for the crime is meth. Ok, that's one reason to vote yes on Prop 5 not on 6.
This proposition wants to put registration requirements and GPS tracking on people convicted of gang related crimes. It doesn't matter how serious the offense is. And they have to do it for five years, regardless of if they are no longer associated with a gang. I am completely against this part of it. Anything that requires registering with the government is just one step closer to making us all get tattooed with barcodes as far as I'm concerned.
So yeah. There are parts of this proposition that I agree with. However, there is still enough that I'm voting no.
Proposition 7 is the clean energy one. It basically adds to a law that already states that energy companies require 20% of their energy to come from renewable resources by 2010.
At first read it looks really good. However it's really long and less than halfway through I was already having problems comprehending this one. So, let's go to the arguments shall we?
The argument for the proposition is all about saving the environment. However, they state that they are against nuclear energy. I have no problems with nuclear energy. The arguments for say that cost of electricity will not be allowed to rise more than 3% per year. Umm, did I miss that in the text? And even if I did... at 3% per year in 5 years that still 15% more than we're paying now.
The argument against however states one thing that really caught my attention. Renewable power from plants under 30 megawatts won’t count toward meeting the law. Today, nearly 60 percent of contracts under California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers. It also supposedly allows providers to charge 10% above market price.
As far as I'm concerned the law was written as to be so long that most people wouldn't read it. That in and of itself is enough for me to vote no.
Proposition 5 is a measure to promote reform for non-violent drug related crimes instead of jail time. Since I'm writing so much the past few days I think I'll just quote knaveofhearts on this one as he's already said pretty much everything I thought of.
Proposition 5 would do a lot: expand drug treatment, modify parole supervision, allow inmates to earn time off for rehab, reduce penalties for marijuana possession, and other stuff. There are three current drug treatment diversion programs: one that looks a lot like traffic school, another for probation in lieu of jail time for lesser charges (I think!), and another program similar to the second one for worse offenders (again, I think). This proposition would give them more money. The changes to parole include term reduction for drug offenders without serious crimes on their records, and longer terms for violent or serious felonies. The changes to rehab basically encourage prisoners to seek treatment while in prison. Possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana by an adult or a minor would become an infraction instead of a misdemeanor. The arguments here are both pretty well-written. They contradict each other (go figure!) but they're readable and coherent. If the rebuttal to argument against can be believed, 80% of the people in California prisons have a problem with substance abuse. That just boggles my mind. Maybe, just maybe, those people don't belong in expensive prisons. Are treatment programs less expensive? I think so based on what I've read elsewhere. I do like the idea of spending $2.5 billion less on prisons over time. Wow. I'm voting "yes".
I'd just like to add that in the argument against it talked about how it would let those who commited acts of child abuse and domestic violence back on the street. Doesn't that kind of go against the whole non-violent thing?
Proposition 6 is for police and law enforcement funding. The arguments against claim all kinds of good things. However here is why I am voting no.
The proposal puts restrictions on the money that comes in from this, stating that set amounts can only be spent on specific things. It does nothing to help the programs that are already in place. It doesn't guarantee that it's going to put more police on the streets. It establishes a whole new (as far as I'm concerned useless) division.
The proposition itself says that there has been a decrease in crime between 1999 and 2006, but 447 more homicides total. However it does not take into account the increase in population, and does not state this number as "per capita". If someone were to look into this they might find that the rate has dropped. It states one of the reasons for the crime is meth. Ok, that's one reason to vote yes on Prop 5 not on 6.
This proposition wants to put registration requirements and GPS tracking on people convicted of gang related crimes. It doesn't matter how serious the offense is. And they have to do it for five years, regardless of if they are no longer associated with a gang. I am completely against this part of it. Anything that requires registering with the government is just one step closer to making us all get tattooed with barcodes as far as I'm concerned.
So yeah. There are parts of this proposition that I agree with. However, there is still enough that I'm voting no.
Proposition 7 is the clean energy one. It basically adds to a law that already states that energy companies require 20% of their energy to come from renewable resources by 2010.
At first read it looks really good. However it's really long and less than halfway through I was already having problems comprehending this one. So, let's go to the arguments shall we?
The argument for the proposition is all about saving the environment. However, they state that they are against nuclear energy. I have no problems with nuclear energy. The arguments for say that cost of electricity will not be allowed to rise more than 3% per year. Umm, did I miss that in the text? And even if I did... at 3% per year in 5 years that still 15% more than we're paying now.
The argument against however states one thing that really caught my attention. Renewable power from plants under 30 megawatts won’t count toward meeting the law. Today, nearly 60 percent of contracts under California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers. It also supposedly allows providers to charge 10% above market price.
As far as I'm concerned the law was written as to be so long that most people wouldn't read it. That in and of itself is enough for me to vote no.