Blog #2 Due Thursday, January 9th @ midnight.

1/8/2015

In 1994, California voters enacted the “Three Strikes and You're Out” law in response to the tragic murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klass. The law imposed a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for crimes defined as serious or violent by the California Penal Code.

According to official ballot materials promoting the original Three Strikes law, the sentencing scheme was intended to “keep murders, rapists, and child molesters behind bars, where they belong.” However, today, more than half of inmates sentenced under the law are serving sentences for nonviolent crimes. In 2012 - California voters made the decision to reduce the penalties for nonviolent criminals. Learn more below.

Ballot Language
Proposition 36, a Change in the "Three Strikes Law" Initiative, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot as an initiated state statute , where it was approved.[1]
Proposition 36 modifies elements of California's "Three Strikes" Law , which was approved by the state's voters in 1994. In 2004, voters rejected Proposition 66 , which like the 2012 measure was an attempt to change some aspects of the original "Three Strikes" Law

Proposition 36:

Revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent."
Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
Continues to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession."
Maintains the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."

One impact of the approval of Proposition 36 was that the approximately 3,000 convicted felons who were as of November 2012 serving life terms under the Three Strikes law, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, became eligible to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence.[2] Some estimates were that reducing the sentences of these current prisoners could result in saving the state somewhere between $150 to $200 million a year.[3]

Altogether, about 8,800 prisoners are currently serving life terms in California prisons under the 1994 law.[4] 24 states have a "Three Strikes"-type law.[4]

Three Strikes Law - The Basics
November 2012 Ballot Initiative - Prop 36
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Reform of the Three Strikes Law
The Committee for Three Strikes Reform
California Criminal Law Observer

What cultural and social factors does Alexander describe that cause Americans to deny the fact of the biased nature of mass incarceration against people of color? How does this denial benefit or harm society?

How do ballot initiatives like Prop 36 relate to the arguments made in The New Jim Crow.

Requirements for BLOG POSTS

You must write 150-250 words for your original post with a 50-100 word response to another student.
Students must post on or before the due date.

7 Comments

Diana Orozco

1/8/2015 05:18:12 am

In chapter two, under “Timed Served”, Michelle Alexander writes about California’s “Three-Strikes” law. A common aspect is represented in each of her examples of people who are serving life sentences for minor crimes; they are all poor and titled as fugitives that can no longer attain jobs, and their final options are stealing or drug dealing for sources of income. These are minor, non-violent crimes people are serving lifetime sentences for.
As Alexander wrote, the police prejudice against people of color takes place when excuses like failing to turn on a signal light, or breaking to a full stop on a cross walk are used to stop a person of color. However, the officer does not just hand the driver a ticket and let him or her free, but the officer will ask the driver to step out of the vehicle to check their car. Next thing you know, another person of color is sent to prison because a traffic ticket turned into a quick drug raid. Therefore, the numbers will show that these mass incarcerations consist of a higher number of people of color than the number of white people, since people of color, as Alexander states, are the ones targeted.
Police constantly targeting minorities in the same community will have a minority sentenced to life for minor crimes once a police officer targeted that minority three times. The poor will remain poor if the children of the poor have no parental guardian(s) to raise them due to mass incarcerations targeted at minorities under the three-strikes law.

Sandra Montes

1/8/2015 06:55:16 am

I like how you used a detailed scenario to demonstrate everyday prejudice and stereotyping that minority races face by the police department. Granted since a scenario like this is a method of covert discrimination, those who do not actually experience it, do not understand how much of a problem it is; they may hear of its occurrence, but have no idea just how constant and routine it is. As we discussed in class, those who are most often heckled by the police are less likely to be carrying drugs than those who the police lets drive by. This causes a racially and socioeconomically imbalanced ratio between those who are incarcerated, and those who walk free.

Diana Gomez

1/8/2015 03:10:51 pm

Great point I definitely agree that people of color had committed nonviolent crimes but were serving lifetime sentences. Despite the fact that most nonviolent crimes been committed by marijuana sales or minor things like that. During 1994 President Clinton signed a bill requiring a life sentence for the third conviction for any of many federal crimes. “Three strikes and you’re out” laws were passed in many states, the first of which was Washington State. In Washington State, Blacks are only 3.5% of the population, but 40% of three- strike prisoners.

Fay

1/8/2015 02:31:07 pm

The idea of policing in poor areas is one reason, because when we talk about poor is in general we speak of minority and people of color. The chance of a person with political powers with many influence living in poor areas are less, which can be used as a green light to do pretty much everything at their discretion.
For the very same reason unlike rich, Poor cannot afford to pay court fees, attorney fees.
One more point to remember the media from early one to make us all to assume if person is of color than they must be guilty of something. This fact has reached the level of enforcing the idea generation to generation to the point that a woman of color is to think to on welfare is the end of their potential.
In chapter 2 of the book we see all that in:
a. Unreasonable suspicion courts gave power to police
b. Just say no talks about courts with many examples Florida v. Bostic
c. Poor excuses
d. Finders keepers “since 1984, when Congress amended federal laws to allow federal law enforcement agencies to retain and use any and all proceeds from asset forfeitures, and allow state and local police agencies to retain 80 present of the assets’ value, that a true revolution occurred.” Page 78-79 in the book. If only you could use the same laws against people with money, than again there is a reason behind why they have money, right?
Problem with drug arrest is there are no victims per say, it is a poor black man’s word against DA! It is to plea guilty for something you did not do, because you are in the hands of public attorney that had less than five minutes to take a look at your case. As it is in the book many go to jail without ever talking to an attorney.

1/8/2015 02:51:05 pm

Fay, you forgot to answer part 2, you might want to put your glasses on!
prop 36 is a new hope, that must be addressed clearly to close any door for abuse. We see that affirmative action laws are there but not much of any help. No one will say I do not give you a job because of your color, they would give you a job that is not worth taking, or under the name of "at will" you have not much of any rights anyways. An African- American police dispatch filed complain to EEOC and was told her defending her self left no room for help for a sexual harassment! Yes many would get out of prison, but as Dr. Crain point out to what? They need a place to stay, job, help to get off drugs.

1/8/2015 03:50:43 pm

I definitely agree with you Fay. Like you mentioned, the poor are POOR, they lack money. Therefore, when they are charged "fees" they are put into dept. So now on top of being labeled a felon and unable to qualify for jobs, the poor owe the government, or the city money. The cycle never ends. It seems almost like these laws have "plan B's" to keep the poor poor, and discriminated against.

Diana

1/8/2015 03:05:17 pm

Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness was a whole system where fictional drama and victimization was build. A mentality was constructed that we needed to keep the streets safe. That dangerous criminals where supposed to be kept in prisons and jails. Many people were convicted for nonviolent crimes. Most people didn’t have right to an attorney. Police often stop and search anyone but mainly people of color. They might not have probable cause but it is always the “criminals” word against the police officer. Police always find a way or an excuse to build probable cause and aren't disciplines for their racist actions. There are about 25 states that have the 3 strikes law. It is intriguing to find out that the states that practice prop 36 and the states that don’t approve prop 36 have approximately the similar level of crime rate and don’t spend a dime on prop 36.
Innocent people plead guilty to avoid harsher penalties. This happens repeatedly in the system. A large majority are not charged with violent offenses as Alexander mentions during 2005 most convictions were for 4/ 5 possession and 1/5 for sales. No history of violence of sales activity had occurred prior to that conviction. What prop 36 did was not to criminalized people that did not commit violent crimes. The third strike would count. For example if you had two strikes already those wouldn't be expunge from the individuals criminal record. Unfortunately people of color were always categorized as violent offenders it didn't matter if it was a nonviolent crime.

Blog #2 Due Thursday, January 9th @ midnight.

Leave a Reply.

JS 132 Students

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Blog #2 Due Thursday, January 9th @ midnight.

Leave a Reply.

JS 132 Students

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS