Prop 9 i.e. Victims Rights Act of 2008

From : http://jbisjuststartin.blogspot.com/

Summary of what Prop 9 is from the voter information guide

- Requires notification to crime victims and gives them an opportunity for input from the victim and their families during almost all phases of the criminal justice process

- Victim’s safety is taken in to consideration when determining bail or release on parole.

- Allows more people to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings

- Reduces the number of parole hearings for each prisoner.

- Requires victims to receive written notification of their constitutional rights

- Establishes time lines concerning parole revocation hearings


In 1982 Prop 8 a.k.a. “Victim’s Bill of Rights” was passed and already made all of the above true in California. This new proposition only reiterates laws that already passed with minor changes and a hidden agenda. When Prop 8 passed, it amended the constitution and other state laws to allow crime victims the right to be notified of, to attend and to state their views at the sentencing and parole hearings of criminals. Prop 8 also established the right of crime victims to obtain restitution from anyone who committed the crime that caused them to suffer a loss.


Now, Prop 9 is disguised to expand the victim’s rights by offering the below:

Crime victims would have the right to 1) prevent the release of certain confidential information about them (which they can do now) 2) refuse to be interviewed at the pretrial stage (which they can do now) 3) protection from harm from other accused individuals (which they get protection now) 4) the return of property which is no longer needed for evidence (which I wouldn’t want my shit back, especially in a murder case) 5) “finality” meaning the final decision made at the hearing (which they can find out now)


Even in the official voter guide there is a note that reads (some of the above rights now exist in statue). The only one I couldn’t find while searching online was the returned evidence items.


Another alleged expansion of this law, which is already in place, states the constitution would be changed to specify the safety of a victim must be taken into consideration by judges in setting bail. Why wouldn’t the judge take the victim and their families in to consideration, especially when they are sitting in the room when the bail/parole is being set? The judge can not ignore the fact that the crime victims are there and I’m sure they play a factor in their decision making.


With California’s overcrowding system, you would assume that the state would go back to their original plans and thoughts regarding earlier release of inmates. Under this new initiative, lifers would be expected to spend life in prison. The state constitution gives a release date to all lifers who were sentenced with a possibility of parole. For instance, my cousin’s date of possible release is 2039. Giving lifers who have a chance of parole that date not only gives them something to strive for and better themselves, but also allows them to redeem themselves. What is worse, knowing your fate, or being given a chance to change it? We are all destined to die, that is apart of life, but we have the opportunity to decide what we do with our fate. When someone is incarcerated the rest of their lives are decided for them, inmates loose that choice that was given to all human beings. A parole possibility gives inmates another chance to change that fate of LIFE in prison. This new measure wouldn’t even give lifers a release date. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is about $46,000, and due to the overcrowding other facilities in prisons like gymnasiums are being used for beds. When a lifer goes up in front of the board, and is denied, they have one year before they can go up again. Under this new measure, they would have to wait 3-15 years, and what is hidden under that is it would be closer to 15 years, no matter what their prison behavior has been.


The only thing that I agree with under this proposition is so minuscule that a new law doesn’t have to be passed for the change to take place, and that is the notification of victims. Currently, victims are notified 30 days before an inmate is released, Prop 9 suggests 90 days. Notifying victims and/or their families is a good thing.


I truly believe that since California legislators received so much shit for their thoughts of releasing prisoners early, their only other option is to build more prisons, in order to deal with the overcrowding. How can they expect to build more prisons when they can’t even get the state budget approved?


The prison system has proposed to take away the only privileges inmates have. They’ve already been forced to use extra space for beds, but now they are going to cut educational/vocational services, conjugal visits and all other rehabilitation programs. It is necessary to rehabilitate prisoners and there are numerous amounts of studies about how important it is. Rehabilitation prepares the inmates for the world again, why would we want to cut those programs, and then let the prisoners out into society, and expect them to function. Many, without rehabilitation, will end up in prison again. Incarceration – Rehabilitation = Incarceration


Many of the state’s school’s furniture is made by inmates, that is all apart of their vocational training, if they take that away what will happen over time when schools need more furniture. The way I see it is, the money paid by the taxpayers, including the money saved by cutting all these programs, will help the state to come up with their funds to build more prisons. There has to be a better way without cutting rehabilitation.


I know it may be hard for some to view prisoners as people, but they are, many made mistakes, were wrongfully accused and they have and will pay for their mistakes in most cases. But at least allow them a second chance, the state already does by giving them a release date for parole. These inmates have families too, just like the victims, and should have a fair chance to survive. Cutting those rehabilitation programs will ensure that they cannot survive once released, if they are released. I haven’t seen any commercials for or against this proposition, so I know most people are clueless about it, as I was.


Voting yes on Prop 9 is not only stupid, but unnecessary, because the victims already have these rights. Voting yes on 9 will only eliminate the rights of inmates, and haven’t they lost enough rights?


Read over your voter guide, go online and educate yourself on Prop 9 and all the other propositions, because November 4th is just around the corner. Be informed and vote No on 9.

http://www.votenoprop9.com/facts.html