Patterico's Pontifications

11/2/2004

Vote No on 66

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 6:35 am

If you live in California, the most important vote you will cast today is the one on Proposition 66. I have written over 40 posts explaining why this is the most disastrous initiative to come up for a vote in recent memory.

I see that a lot of people are interested — I am getting a lot of Google hits from searches related to Proposition 66. That’s a good thing. I am convinced that the more you learn about this proposition, the worse it looks. All we need is for people to be educated.

Please — if you are thinking of voting “yes,” look at the posts in my No on 66 category, and consider voting no.

Our safety is at stake.

13 Responses to “Vote No on 66”

  1. I voted at 0700 and voted NO on 66 as did my wife. I think my son and daughter-in-law in Sili Valley will also vote no. I agree it is very important and the BS that was on the TV for it was terrible. Also the “news” people on Channels 2,4 and 7 all were pro 66 and made it sound like Arnold and the “rich” Republicans were trying to defeate a “good” law. Who needs the LAT for bias when you have TV?
    Rod Stanton
    Cerritos

    Rod Stanton (f10b45)

  2. I’ve been hearing lots of ads by former Gov. Jerry Brown. He, Arnold and all former CA governors oppose 66 and are pleading with voters to reject it. Let’s hope he’s persuasive.

    Penny Silver (cf9469)

  3. Also the “news” people on Channels 2,4 and 7 all were pro 66

    But you didn’t mention your thoughts on why the TV and newspapers are suggesting a Yes vote on 66.

    Was it due to backlash against the political muscle of the Prison Guards union? The huge expense to the state of incarcerating thousands of additional people? Or possibly that the 3-Strikes law is currently flawed?

    Cz (494d1f)

  4. Or because leftists are generally anti-punishment?

    The Angry Clam (c96486)

  5. Just as an example, Washington State has a similar 3-strikes law. ‘Felonious assault’ was included as a strike (where the victim is seriously injured or _killed_).

    Here, including felonious assault was overturned by court case on the premise that you didn’t prove _intent_ “Oh, we’re _positive_ no one will be released other than this one fellow who just happened to have brass knuckles on when he punched that guy. He didn’t mean for the other guy to die.”

    200 people released – I think we’re up to three (in just 3 years) that have found their way back into the big house.

    If throwing someone in jail for life for a ‘mere’ mugging seems extreme – think of it as a completely different crime. It isn’t “20 years for mugging” – it is “20 years for three violent felonies”, which is a separate crime.

    Al (98e4ad)

  6. If throwing someone in jail for life for a ‘mere’ mugging seems extreme – think of it as a completely different crime. It isn’t “20 years for mugging” – it is “20 years for three violent felonies”, which is a separate crime.

    Not sure if I understand your point on this. Isn’t the issue under question making the 3rd strike have to be a violent felony to trigger 25 yrs-to-life?

    Otherwise, your example about the 20 yrs for 3 violent felonies would seem to be reasonable.

    Cz (494d1f)

  7. If throwing someone in jail for life for a ‘mere’ mugging seems extreme – think of it as a completely different crime. It isn’t “20 years for mugging” – it is “20 years for three violent felonies”, which is a separate crime.

    Not sure if I understand your point on this. Isn’t the issue under question making the 3rd strike have to be a violent felony to trigger 25 yrs-to-life?

    Otherwise, your example about the 20 yrs for 3 violent felonies would seem to be reasonable.

    Cz (494d1f)

  8. re: TV pro 66
    The folks on 2 and 7 said that the law was too severe, and implied (without saying explicitly) that it was racist. 4 did not say why 66 was “good”. None mentioned the guards’s union. what came through on all was the Gov was trying to manipulate the voters.
    Rod Stanton
    Cerritos

    Rod Stanton (f10b45)

  9. Thanks for all your 66 explanations, Patterico.

    I almost voted No, but fell back to liberalism in the end: more afraid of injustice to the (relatively) innocent than of freeing the guilty and unwilling to depend much on the discretion of prosecutors and judges to decide what is a strike.
    Sorry to disappoint.

    The WSJ editorial and Public Defender Dude were also pretty influential for me, with PDD being the most informative pro-66 person I read.

    betty (71e177)

  10. Wow– fifty fifty right now, according to channel 11 in San Fran. Patterico, I don’t know how much to credit you for this but the fact is I wouldn’t care about it so much if it weren’t for your eloquence.

    Good job, buddy–you’ve helped to take this from a lost cause to a horserace.

    See-Dubya (921613)

  11. “You can fool some of the people………….”

    The Yes on 66 came close but the truth came out. I’m still amazed at the number of newspapers, etc. who supported this insane prop. Maybe Jerry Keenan bought them too.

    John Oakden (a5f2c5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2172 secs.