The proposed changes would change the meaning of "violent felon" to include all robberies, among other things. I don't want my VCR stolen, but if it was, I wouldn't automatically call the person violent. Also, it would say "habitual sex offenders" will be people with ONE offense. Since when is once a habit? At first I thought this proposition sounded good, but when I got to the nitty gritty, it really seems like overkill. It looks like all the offenders would have to move to rural areas where it would be harder to monitor them, even with GPS! Has anyone read this in full?
2006-10-24 16:03:59 · 6 answers · asked by advicemom 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
ah sorry, i'm in CA!
2006-10-24 16:07:53 · update #1
I haven't decided on the issue. But I have read the full text. I don't find anywhere in the text that states that all robbers will be labeled violent felons. I think you mean the statement that if an attempted rape occurs during a burgulary, then the burgular will be charged as a violent sex offender. Here are some summaries of the proposed law.
Increase Penalties for Sex Offenses. This measure increases the penalties for specified sex offenses. It does this in several ways. In some cases:
It broadens the definition of certain sex offenses. For example, the measure expands the definition of aggravated sexual assault of a child to include offenders who are at least seven years older than the victim, rather than the ten years required under current law.
It provides for longer penalties for specified sex offenses. For example, it expands the list of crimes that qualify for life sentences in prison to include assault to commit rape during the commission of a first-degree burglary.
It prohibits probation in lieu of prison for some sex offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious acts.
It eliminates early release credits for some inmates convicted of certain sex offenses (for example, habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions for specified felony sex offenses such as rape).
It extends parole for specified sex offenders, including habitual sex offenders.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Proposition 83 will:
Ensure mandatory minimum sentences of 15 to 25 years to life
Ensure sex offenders serve their full sentence
Electronically monitor sex offenders for life (GPS)
Strengthen the sexually violent predator program
Create predator-free zones
OPPONENTS SAY
It will cost taxpayers an estimated $500 million and will not increase our children's safety.
Other states have found that similar laws have proven ineffective, too costly and a drain on crucial law enforcement resources.
It will impose both lifetime residence restrictions and lifetime GPS monitoring on thousands of people who have lived law-abiding lives for decades.
Residency restrictions will not be effective against 80 to 90 percent of sex crimes against children, because a relative or an acquaintance of the child commits those crimes.
2006-10-25 06:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by BParker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i checked the California Democratic party's page and they said yes to Prop 83, but before i read that i was inclined to vote No on prop 83.
So im not totally sure about that one yet.
2006-10-24 16:35:24 · answer #2 · answered by foxey_lady04 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we dont have a prop 83 here in Michigan
2006-10-24 16:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by Mopar Muscle Gal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No you the only one in the whole world that has read it.
2006-10-24 16:36:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no but since yopu have brought it to light i would vote no on it, good point made
2006-10-24 16:39:33 · answer #5 · answered by blue_eyed_southernman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO
2006-10-24 16:16:23 · answer #6 · answered by Adriana 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋