|
ELECTION CHOICES
Two paths to criminal justice
California operates one of the harshest criminal
justice systems in the country, from arrest to sentencing. Two
propositions on the November ballot offer voters the choice between a
more or less punitive notion of justice. “Joe” is being held at Alameda
County's Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, Calif., awaiting the outcome of his
criminal charges. He is one of thousands of young African American men
from Oakland whose life depends on one judge's decision. He will either
spend 25 years to life in a California state prison or be released back
to the streets where he came from. While life outside has its own set of
problems, it beats the hell out of life in prison. So Joe prays,
volunteers for work duty, takes GED and employability classes, and
otherwise does “good time” until he knows his fate.
I met Joe doing voter education outreach in Santa Rita
Jail. First and foremost, the law organization I work for wanted to
spread the gospel of voting to those incarcerated in the county jails.
Despite the fact that California doesn't have a law banning ex-felons,
people on probation, or people in county jails from voting, the vast
majority of folks in these situations believe that they aren't allowed
to vote. California law explicitly allows people on probation or in
jails to vote at the same time it disenfanchises people on parole or in
prison. The second reason I was in the jail was to let inmates know
about two state-wide propositions that could greatly impact their lives:
Propositions 66 and 69. Proposition 66 is designed to roll back some of
the harsher effects of the 1994 Three Strikes Law, passed overwhelming
by California voters in the wake of the brutal kidnapping and murder of
young Polly Klaas. Californians believed that the law would put violent
and serious offenders behind bars. But it turned out that more than half
of the people convicted under the Three Strikes law are convicted for
non-violent crimes. Proposition 66 would change the Three-Strikes law so
that it would apply only to people who are convicted of murder, rape,
robbery or other violent crimes as well as those that assault or sell
drugs to minors. The “new and improved” Three Strikes would reflect what
the voters who supported it in 1994 truly intended. It would also end
California's dubious honor of having the harshest Three Strikes law in
the nation. Proposition 66 isn't just supported by civil libertarians,
it's also endorsed by unexpected others including Joe Klaas, Polly Klaas'
grandfather, and the San Francisco Black Police Officers Association.
I spoke with Joe and 50 to 60 other men and women
taking classes in Santa Rita Jail about Proposition 66. Joe and most of
the others that I talked with thought the changes made sense. They
talked about how imprisoning people for long years for nonviolent crimes
doesn't really stop crime, breaks up families and costs the state
hundreds of millions of dollars a year. California has, by far the
largest prison system in the nation. The national average for
corrections spending is less than one million per year. California
spends nearly seven million. This doesn't include the social and
financial costs to families and children with incarcerated parents. Joe
also likes Proposition 66 because it's retroactive. People who were
convicted of non-violent or not serious felonies may apply for a
resentencing hearing that could reduce the time they will be imprisoned.
Everyone I spoke with knew someone – themselves, their family members,
friends or neighbors – who would be impacted by the change in the law.
They and their loved ones are some of the thousands in California who
may be eligible for rehearings if the law passes. Proposition 66 gives
hope to Joe and his fellow inmates that they could some day disentangle
themselves from the criminal justice system and begin to live full and
productive lives. Proponents of Proposition 66 believe that it offers an
opportunity for voters who supported the original Three Strikes law, but
have found it to be too extreme in it is implementation, to refine it
without losing the power to punish repeat, violent offenders. They also
feel that Proposition 66 will end a huge waste of precious taxpayer
dollars. Opponents, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a host
of district attorneys and sheriffs, believe Proposition 66 will weaken
law enforcement capabilities and release dangerous criminals back to the
community. I left it to the class to decide for themselves, although
most of the inmates' views were in line with the current polls: that the
lengthy, determinate sentencing of Three Strikes should be reserved only
for the most serious, violent felonies.
For the last 50 years, California has operated under a
law enforcement model that has meant billions spent on prison
construction, billions on arresting, convicting, and jailing poor young
people of color, but has put nothing towards the underlying causes of
crime, crime prevention, rehabilitation or re-entry. Joe and other
inmates felt that Proposition 66 was a step, however small, away from
that extremely punitive “crime suppression” model that has taken over
not just California but the entire country. Californians may choose to
take this step on Nov. 2, however they also have a proposition on the
ballot that would be a step in the other direction. Proposition 69 is
firmly rooted in the crime suppression/punitive model. It would expand
the people from whom the state law enforcement can collect, store and
test DNA. Currently, the law already requires DNA to be collected from
people convicted of serious or violent felonies, as well as all state
prison inmates. Proposition 69 would expand the DNA database to include
any adult or kid arrested for any felony offense – even if the person is
later proven innocent, suffered a case of mistaken identity, or is never
charged with a crime. The proposed law doesn't provide any guarantees
that this information would not be used or tested for purposes other
than law enforcement. When I brought up Proposition 69 with the inmates
in Santa Rita jail, one of them asked, “What about the fact that we're
'innocent until proven guilty'?” If passed, Proposition 69 would require
the collection of DNA data from hundreds of thousands of people, many of
whom would prove to be innocent of any criminal charges. In 2003, for
example, one- third of the 507,000 people arrested in California on some
felony charge had the charges dismissed or eventually were found not
guilty. DNA is some of your most personal information. Unlike a
fingerprint, DNA carries intimate knowledge about your health and your
predisposition for certain diseases. Nothing in Proposition 69
adequately protects a person's basic right to privacy or prevents this
information from being shared with other agencies.
Opponents of Proposition 69, such as Maya Harris of
the ACLU of Northern California, believe that it “is a dangerous and
unnecessary expansion of government power.” Moreover, it will be a
costly and burdensome venture that will not achieve the goal of
improving crime solving, as touted by proponents. Proponents include the
governor and California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer. They argue
that the collection of those arrested for felonies would make California
safer and that provisions insure that innocent people can apply to
remove their DNA from the system. However, to remove your DNA requires a
complex appeals process that would require legal representation, the
cost of which would make this remedy prohibitive for many. At the end of
the two classes I helped teach at Santa Rita jail, we had registered
around 40 voters. Most of them were going to vote for the first time in
their lives. Some of the participants wanted to register, but couldn't
because they are not citizens. Others simply said they did not want to
participate in a system that they feel is racist and has done nothing
but oppress them. Several days after the class, I received a letter from
Joe. He wrote that he was grateful to know that he had the right to vote
and he was glad to be able exercise that right on issues that directly
impact him and his community. Reading Joe's letter, I cannot help but
imagine if all those arrested or on probation across the country knew
their voting rights. Because of their situation, the people I spoke with
in Santa Rita had unique insight into the affects of Propositions 66 and
69 on their communities. Armed with enough knowledge, and the ability to
vote and use it, they can not only impact what laws are passed, but also
what laws are proposed.
Tirien Steinbach
25 October 2004.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/20284/
home /
Previous
viewpoint
|
