Longer prison sentences for some offenders. New powers to build
temporary jails. Millions in tax dollars for the fight against
gangs.
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES – Longer prison sentences for some offenders. New powers to build temporary jails. Millions in tax dollars for the fight against gangs.
Proposition 6 reads like a tough-on-crime wish-list and has broad support with law enforcement.
Trouble is, the money – at least $365 million a year – has to come from somewhere. Squeezing that cash from a strapped general fund while the state faces budget deficits has prompted opposition from key interest groups. They fear the initiative would be implemented at the expense of education spending, intervention programs and other vital services.
“This would mandate moving (money) from other parts of the budget to the after-effects of crime and punishment,” Los Angeles City Councilman and former police chief Bernard Parks said. “That worries me.”
State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, who co-authored the “Safe Neighborhoods Act,” said it’s not true that his initiative would mean less funding for other programs.
He said the proposal amounts to only a third of 1 percent of the state’s overall budget, so it would not eat into school money. He said intervention programs would still be funded.
“The number one role of government is the protection and safety of its citizens,” said Runner, who also authored California’s Jessica’s Law, which mandates lifelong satellite tracking of released sex offenders. “It’s a fine time to ask voters if they want to prioritize their tax dollars for public safety.”
Numbers from the state attorney general’s office show crime in California trending down over the past decade, but gang-related homicides keep nudging up. In the last 10 years, those killings increased by nearly 19 percent, and Runner pointed to the gang crisis as his motivation.
Proposition 6 would fix a problem with Jessica’s Law, which did not identify who would pay for the global positioning systems, leaving hundreds of offenders without them. The initiative would allocate $15 million to counties for GPS funding.
Because it contains no new revenue-raising mechanisms, the money could come only from the state’s general fund. According to an analysis by California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the proposition would initially cost an extra $365 million a year. But inflation, additional prison costs associated with longer sentences and other factors mean the state would soon be locked into spending an extra $500 million.
Most of the money would go to police, sheriff’s departments, district attorneys, adult probation services and county jails with the rest going to local juvenile and rehabilitation services and other programs.
Proposition 6 also would usher in several changes to state law. Among them:
– Illegal immigrants charged with violent felonies or gang crimes could not be released on bail.
– Sheriff’s deputies and local courts would be required to run immigration checks on anyone charged or booked for a felony.
– Gang members convicted of home invasion robberies and certain other offenses would be subject to life in prison.
– Gang members as young as 14 could be tried as adults under certain circumstances.
– Methampthetamine possession would become a felony.
– Those living in public housing would face annual criminal background tests, losing their homes if they fail.
– Sheriff’s departments could build temporary jail facilities to reduce the number of inmates released early due to overcrowding.
Numerous nonprofit and community action groups oppose the measure. Some worry they would lose funding if it is passed, while others say it is a step backward in community relations and crime prevention.
Lisa Adler, an organizer at The Strategy Center, a civil rights nonprofit in Los Angeles, said the immigration status checks after felony arrests would make immigrants reluctant to speak to authorities.
“It increases the lack of trust immigrants have of law enforcement; it begins to weaken that relationship,” Adler said.
She also said the wider requirements to check immigration status could lead to police profiling those who appear to be illegal immigrants.
Runner sees such checks as leading to huge savings for the state, which can recover from the federal government much of the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants.
“We are now having to house an individual who is in this country illegally,” Runner said. “California is not responsible for immigration law.”
Opponents of the measure like to point out that the campaign’s main financial backer is Henry T. Nicholas III, the billionaire co-founder and former chief executive of semiconductor maker Broadcom Corp. who has contributed $1 million.
A passionate campaigner for victims’ rights after his sister was murdered, Nicholas was indicted in June on federal narcotics charges. They included allegations that he slipped Ecstasy into the drinks of business associates, maintained a drug warehouse and concealed his illegal conduct with bribes and death threats. Nicholas has pleaded not guilty and is free on bail.
Not surprisingly, Runner played down Nicholas’ support of the initiative.
“There is nothing in the initiative that has anything to do with his indictment,” Runner said. “It just is not connected.”
Many law enforcement agencies from around the state support the measure, eager for the extra cash it would bring.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said the measure would help create a “complete, systemic solution” to California’s gang problems, providing much-needed money for law enforcement and to gang-intervention programs.
“It really is speaking directly to one of the most significant crime problems in California,” Baca said. “Local governments cannot bare the brunt financially of solving this problem.”
