California’s Proposition 9 – An Explanation and Six Reasons Why It Is A Horrible Idea

This supposedly addresses the rights of crime victims in criminal proceedings. It was funded by billionaire Henry Nicholas, the same guy who funded Prop. 6, and yes, the same guy who is now awaiting trial on federal drug trafficking charges. We’ll just let that one sink in for a minute.

If passed, Prop. 9 requires the DA and, in some cases, judges to consult with crime victims and consider their opinions before making decisions as to what charges should be filed, whether the defendant should be allowed out on bail, what sort of plea deals the prosecution should accept, probation conditions, and a few other procedural matters.  This is a terrible idea for so many reasons, but we’ll focus on six.

First, the law will be struck down by the California Supreme Court the as soon as it’s passed because it fundamentally changes the role of the prosecutor in our criminal justice system. The job of the prosecutor is to seek justice on behalf of all the people in the state, not to advocate for a crime victim. That’s why criminal cases are “People of the State of California v. Defendant” not “Victim v. Defendant.” Under Prop.9, the DA no longer represents the state, but becomes the personal attorney for crime victims (at taxpayer expense). In this role, the Prosecutor is no longer seeking justice for the state, but zealously advocating for the victim’s rights. This violates not only constitutional principles but it runs afoul of at least 10 laws governing the conduct of attorneys. Scary stuff.

Don’t believe us?  you can always ask Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley who is against Prop. 9.  Yes, the head prosecuting attorney for LA County is against this proposed anti-crime law.  As he told the LA Times:

Cooley and his staff said the measure could interfere with prosecutions by making victims into independent parties to criminal cases with the ability, for instance, to challenge sentences and to demand a speedy trial, and to refuse to cooperate with a defense lawyer’s requests for information as part of the trial process…In an interview, he called the proponents “very well-motivated people who suffered incredible tragedies in their life,” but he said “huge chunks” of their initiative are unconstitutional.

“We don’t like to have the public think they’re getting something when they’re not,” Cooley said. “We don’t want victims to think they’re getting some special right, and it may be unenforceable.”

Second, a crime victim or a crime victim’s family who has no understanding of police process, state penal codes, the rules of evidence, sentencing laws, prison procedures, probation rules, or court procedures is absolutely not qualified to be a part of this decision making process. Plus, they’re heavily biased (obviously). If people think our criminal courts are too easy on criminals, they can vote the judge and DA out of office and get someone they like. Although I challenge anyone to find a state that is “tougher” on crime than California.

Third, the Prop. 9 set-up is a guarantee for the DA to give priority to the victim or victim’s family who is the most persistent. A crime victim who may be more timid or less persistent would go to the back of the line. Nobody wants “the squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease” theory to apply to crime victims.

Fourth, most of Prop. 9’s provisions are already on the books.  Judges routinely issue “stay away” and restraining orders against a victim’s attacker.   In 1982, California voters enacted the “Victim’s Bill of Rights Act” which amended the state constitution and guaranteed voters the right to be notified and heard at sentencing and parole hearings; required offenders to pay restitution to their victims (paying victims for losses suffered because of the crime).  Proposition 9 needlessly repeats all of these laws.

Fifth, Proposition 9 ignores the financial reality of California’s prison system. Prop. 9 wants to make parole eligibility tougher and limit early release from prisons or county jail for any reason. We already have the toughest parole rules in the nation with less than 1% of those eligible for parole actually getting released.

As for preventing early release for any reason, the Prop. 9 folks are just plain wrong. California’s prisons stand at 200% capacity. The prisons house 171,000 inmates at a cost of $64,000/year per healthy inmate. As for the unhealthy inmates, prison health care is so bad that a federal court ordered California to spend $8 billion to upgrade medical facilities and services. This means that our $10 billion annual prison budget will increase to $18 billion, while we cut education and senior citizen programs.

California cannot afford to house tens of thousands of elderly, terminally ill and non-violent offenders for their full sentences. And why are non-violent offenders in prison for such long periods of time? Not because of any prevailing criminal justice theory, no…the long sentences are the result of previous ill-conceived determinate sentencing laws that California voters enacted and that the legislature passed so they could look ‘tough on crime.”

Sixth, go read the official Yes-On-9 official ballot arguments. They use A LOT OF CAPS so they CAN SHOW YOU HOW ANGRY THEY ARE and so they CAN SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF YOU. Do we really want to change our entire criminal justice system based on an emotionally charged ballot argument and enact a “tough on crime” bill sponsored by someone accused of fraud and drug trafficking?

The Johnny California Editorial Board Recommends NO on Prop. 9