ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: June 13 Recording online, July 11, August 15 details

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – Postponed to Oct 10-11

California

Ballot Proposition Increases Violent Felonies, Requires DNA Collection for Misdemeanors

[ACSOL]

A ballot proposition that will appear on the November 2020 ballot in California, if passed, would significantly increase the number of violent felonies as well as require the collection of DNA from individuals convicted of some misdemeanor offenses.  The title of the ballot proposition is “Violent Crime, DNA Collection and Parole Initiative.”  The proposition has not yet been assigned a number or a letter that will be included on the ballot.

“We must work together in order to stop this ballot proposition,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “If this ballot proposition is passed, it will reverse the progress made in AB 109, Proposition 47 and Proposition 57 resulting in increased prison sentences and other significant harm.”

Specifically, the ballot proposition would increase the total number of violent felonies from 27 to 51.  There are currently only 9 sex offenses identified as violent felonies and the ballot proposition would increase that number to 14.

According to government records, those who support the ballot proposition have raised about $1.7 million.  Supporters include a wide range of law enforcement organizations including the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Peace Officers Research Association and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.

Those who oppose the ballot proposition have raised about $1.4 million.  Opponents include the ACLU, Californians Against Prison Spending Scam, the California Public Safety and Rehabilitation Fund and former Governor Jerry Brown.

“There are more than 100,000 residents of California listed on the state’s sex offender registry,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.  “Most of those individuals are eligible to vote and should not only vote against the ballot proposition, but also encourage members of their families and friends to vote against it.”

 

Join the discussion

  1. totally against public registry

    Definitely will vote against it. I can’t believe in the midst of all of this de-funding police, police brutality and violence, prison reform talks, they have the nerve to try and pass some more shitty laws. Thanks for the heads up, Janice.

    • SR

      This was set for November before all this happened. But given everything that has happened, this will likely lose at the ballot. Not only because people are that much more against harsher sentencing now, but because this will cost the tax payers substantially more money in a time when all the states are not substantially struggling. We shouldn’t be complacent about this in November, but the recent events definitely places this one in the losing section now when before it had a much higher chance of passing. It’s also heartening to see that the opposition has so far been able to raise nearly as much money as the pro side. Last time ACSOL brought this bill up, the opposition had less than half the money.

      • LPH

        @SR: “Not only because people are that much more against harsher sentencing now, but because this will cost the tax payers substantially more money in a time when all the states are not substantially struggling.”
        Yes, people complain about their taxes but I don’t think that plays a part in their voting.

  2. Jack7170

    The bastards are lying in their argument. They say drive by shootings of all things aren’t considered violent felonies in california. I think Jerry brown needs to expose that in his argument come November.

    • SR

      Their argument in general is flawed since they have to go up in front a parole board anyway. It’s not like they automatically get released. Even if they did something very violent, the parole board may decide the person really rehabed themselves and deserves early release. This law would take it out of the boards hands, just like the stupid three strikes law took it out of judges hands and forced some people to serve life for very minor offenses (such as stealing an expensive bike) that otherwise counted as a strike.

  3. David

    Another very ugly, lock-’em-up, throw-away-the-key, overly harsh initiative. 😖

    • New Person

      @David,

      I agree. The state wants to keep increasing prison time and not address rehabilitation. This is akin to President Clinton and the Democratic super majority’s passing of the 1994 Crime Bill.

      ::: sighs :::

      • Robin

        The Clinton era crime bill was a national bipartisan piece of legislation passed AFTER the gop took over the house in ’94. This latest California proposal is a state ballot initiative that has nothing to do with the California legislature. So you’re mixing apples & oranges. Instead of referring to what Clinton did nearly 30 years ago, look closer to home at what our last democratic governor (Jerry Brown) said about this latest ballot initiative.

      • Robin

        @New Person Well, actually you’re right about the crime bill being passed with a democratic house majority, the gop grinrich revolution took place a little afterwards, and they surely wouldn’t have allowed the ban on assault weapons provision of the crime bill. But this ballot initiative is way different because it’s voter driven and has a slim chance of passing.

  4. mike r

    So apparently, according to the text of the proposition attempted 288(a) would now be a violent felony. Hmmm. Interesting. A matter of fact any attempt of the listed offenses will become felonies. So is this applied retro or how is that going to work.

    • SR

      The way I read it is that many now become wobblers instead of misdemeanors for future prosecution. It shouldn’t affect anyone retroactively in regards to how they were charged. But those up for parole might now have that retracted due to being classified as “violent”.

    • John Androtti

      @ mike r. 288 (a) is already a violent felony. They changed this years ago. So really it will affect other sex crimes, not the 228 (a).

      • SR

        There’s currently a distinction in Attempted versus actually committed 288 (a).

      • mike r

        No, currently a 664/288(a) is a non-violent offense. Just as all the listed offenses, any attempt would be a violent offense under the proposition.

    • BJ

      At times, I can be very violent

  5. Eric

    What are the effects of a crime being labeled as a “violent felony?”

  6. Jason

    Looked at who donated money in support of it, can’t believe a certain grocery chain donated $100k, looks like I won’t shop there again!

    • NPS

      Safeway is a ghetto store anyway. I never shop there. For the SoCal folk, that means you need to start boycotting Vons.

  7. TS

    Patty Quillin donated $250,000 opposing the measure. She is the wife of Netflix co-founder. Shoplifters who steal minimum of $250 will be required to provide DNA. The correctional officers requested their $2 million donation be returned. I have not seen any news that that has occurred. This measure has the ability to increase prison populations, increased costs to local and state jurisdictions, and creating a new class of violent sex offenders which may of course change the tier levels in SB384. The opposition is tying this measure to the Trump Administration despite the fact that the measures primary sponsor, Assemblyman Cooper, is a democrat. However, in California making this a Trump position is enough to defeat it. In politics, you say what you can to defeat this badly contrived law. Defeat it in November.

    • TS

      This isn’t the TS that has been posting here for years but another on the scene

    • A.D.A.T.

      T.S.

      They way you are describing it, it would seem that perception is trumping many of the facts, in that all people hear is “Trump related” and it is enough to create a negative opinion without even investigating the proposition. This is what we have been experienced since the inception of the registry, but for once it could go in our favor.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.