Patterico's Pontifications


Initiatives Numbered . . . Start the Chant: NO ON 66!

Filed under: Crime,No on 66 — Patterico @ 9:29 pm

Dan Weintraub says the initiatives have been numbered — 59 through 72. The one you will hear me talk most about here is 66 — the dangerous pig-in-a-poke initiative designed to water down the Three Strikes law. (For information on this horrible initiative, see my posts on the issue.)

(Hat tip: Xrlq.)

14 Responses to “Initiatives Numbered . . . Start the Chant: NO ON 66!”

  1. Get your kicks, but NOT on Route 66.

    Xrlq (6d213c)

  2. Yeah, I was trying to come up with something along those lines. I think it still needs work.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  3. Well if prop 69 had been a worthwhile measure I’d suggest the off color:

    No, No on 66, we would rather 69!


    Alan (716933)

  4. Mmmm . . . still needs work.

    Patterico (932d2f)

  5. OK, maybe try a heavy metal approach, with a Bruce Dickinson sound-alike singing:

    Prop… 66
    The number of the beast
    Hell-ish killers, soon to be released.

    Don’t worry, I’m not quitting my day job.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  6. I wouldn’t.

    But I think you’re getting warmer.

    Patterico (530df6)

    (ON prop 66!!!!!!!)……you guys don’t know whats really going on in our country.Well i’ll tell you, prop 66 means 3 strikes for murderes , rapists , Robberys and serious violent offences,and yes it means if somebody stills a t- shirt or piece of GUM doesn’t have to go to jail for the rest of their lifes… so i say yes on prop 66 and you should too….:)

    rachel (5b9881)

  8. I say yeson prop 66 because it’s right!!!!

    shawn -- well ok really just rachel again (5b9881)

  9. Shawn/Rachel:

    One name per IP address, mmmmkay?

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  10. Rachel, let’s assume two people steal a pack of gum each. Defendant ‘A’ has a clean record, not a single conviction. Defendant ‘B’ has been convicted of a robbery, a residential burglary, and a rape.

    How much time should each defendant serve?

    Shouldn’t defendant ‘B’, who has shown that he hasn’t learned his lesson and continues to commit crimes, have to serve more time than one who has never committed a crime?

    MOG (f704e4)

  11. Just a few questions the likes of which you’ve come to expect from me…

    Bleeding Heart Question #1: From a purely ethical perspective, wouldn’t our efforts and resources be better spent trying to rehabilitate people as productive members of society rather than locking them up for the next 50+ years (not to mention footing the bill)?

    Bleeding Heart Question #2: Should non-violent drug offenders, such as people caught possessing pot, be put away for life as well? (Read: aren’t CA prisons crowded with enough non-violent offenders as it is?)

    Bleeding Heart Question #3: Isn’t Rachel right, to the extent that neither crime nor context should be considered irrelevant?

    Your thoughts, please. Thanks.

    Tom (be1f68)

  12. #1: Depends on who you’re talking about.

    #2: In California, simple possession of marijuana cannot be punished by jail or prison. The maximum penalty is a $100 fine. Possession of marijuana with the intent to sell it is a different matter.

    #3: Rachel is wrong, to the extent that nobody goes to jail for lifes for stilling a T-shirt.

    Patterico (f7b3e5)

  13. I’ve since found the other posts on the subject. Really interesting reading…for one thing, I didn’t know you’re a prosecuting attorney!(?)

    I’ll read on before making some half-baked argument.

    Tom (be1f68)

  14. Schwarzenegger supports 69
    Governor Schwarzenegger has signed four ballot arguments on measures before the voters of California on the November ballot–agreeing with BoiFromTroy on all counts. The Governator will oppose Props 68 and 70–which expand gambling in the State–as wel…

    BoiFromTroy (96766d)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2184 secs.