Disappointments with Prop 66 and Prop 69 Results

Anonymous, CCWF
Proposition 66 would have changed California’s three strikes law to require that only serious felonies could constitute a strike. ?Editors
Those opposed to Proposition 66 incited fear of burglars or of arson or murder. Of course no one wants to lose their life or have their belongings damaged. I am sure the same people who voted against Prop 66, if they were asked why do people commit crimes, would come up with answers other than just locking people up forever. A personal possession of drugs is an indication of an addiction, a solution to which is not a life sentence for a $25 rock!
Those opposed to Prop 66 were saying that Three Strikes is a good law because it looks at people’s prior record, not just the crime they committed this time. But if they finished their prison sentence and paid for their previous crime, whatever it was, how can you keep punishing them for it over and over?
There was a lot of excitement in our unit on Nov. 2, as the returns were coming in showing Prop 66 winning. The guards were nervous, just sitting in their room, probably worried about losing their jobs, while people were celebrating their possibility of getting out soon. We were all disappointed that it didn’t pass. The guards posted a huge sign on Nov. 3 saying, “No whining!”
Proposition 69, which passed with a 62% yes vote, expands the collection of DNA samples, for submission to the state database to include all convicted felons, some convicted non-felons, and also individuals arrested for certain offenses even if they are never charged with any crime. The expansion of the DNA collection will be funded by increasing the amount of criminal penalties associated with various offenses. Prop 69 will criminalize thousands more people, who are most likely to be people of color. It denies more people their basic rights to privacy and control over their own bodies under the guise of making the public ?safer?.