Prop. 5 will reform criminal justice
This year voters will be asked to approve a substantial reform of California”s overwhelmed criminal justice system. The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA ), Proposition 5 on the November ballot, will change the way the state treats nonviolent offenders. It will implement reforms repeatedly recommended by experts over several decades and will finally address the role that addiction and mental illness play in driving our incarceration and recidivism rates.
Prop. 5 builds upon the successful drug treatment programs created by voter-approved Prop. 36 (November 2000). California currently offers virtually no publicly funded substance abuse treatment options for youth under the age of 18. This tragic and short-sighted failure abandons young people to their drug problems, putting their safety, their physical and mental health, and their futures at risk. Families, too often, have nowhere to turn for help.
NORA would fund the creation of a system of care for non-criminally involved young people with drug problems. NORA commits about $65 million per year to drug treatment and other support programs for youth, funding the creation of a system of care for young people under the age of 18 where no system exists now.
Additional money for youth treatment would come from fines paid for low-level marijuana possession offenses.
By expanding rehabilitation behind bars, providing more re-entry services to nonviolent offenders on parole and expanding access to treatment, instead of incarceration, for nonviolent low-level drug offenders, NORA would significantly reduce recidivism and support parolee reintegration into the community. NORA expands the diversion of nonviolent offenders to addiction treatment. NORA provides rehabilitation programs to nonviolent prisoners and parolees, and prevents them from being returned to prison for minor violations. NORA motivates participants to complete treatment and rehabilitation through an appropriate mix of incentives, rewards, sanctions and consequences.
NORA creates a unified system of care and provides $385 million per year to pay for drug treatment and related costs. Nonviolent drug offenders would be placed in one of three different levels of care and supervision, based on their criminal history and drug problem severity. Participants who fail at the lower levels could be moved up to the more intensive levels, or could be jailed for noncompliance. Completing the prescribed course of treatment can lead to the participant”s drug offense being dropped from his or her criminal record. It provides for prison system and parole reforms.
NORA makes rehabilitation a real priority for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, while limiting the use of prison beds to punish minor parole violations by nonviolent offenders. An independent oversight panel would have authority over major aspects of the implementation of NORA.
Because NORA would sharply limit the incarceration of nonviolent offenders, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst”s Office (LAO) projects that the measure would save California $1 billion or more each year in prison and parole costs. Much of the annual savings would be used instead to pay for the measure”s new treatment and rehabilitation programs. According to the LAO, the state would see additional net savings of $2.5 billion over several years as prison-construction costs would be reduced by NORA”s reforms.
Lake County Democrats and the Democratic Party of California urge a “yes” vote on Propostion 5. In this time of budget crisis, California cannot afford to continue “churning” nonviolent offenders, without reducing recidivism. NORA would reallocate funding to make rehabilitation and drug treatment a priority. The “Yes” campaign”s Web site is: www.prop5yes.com/.
The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act offers common-sense solutions to California”s prison overcrowding crisis.
Rebecca Curry, chair
Lake County Democratic Central Committee
Democrats recommend ?No” on Prop. 7
Lake County Democratic Party recommends a No Vote on Proposition 7, the Renewable Energy Generation Initiative. California cannot afford to once again jeopardize the economy of our state to a flawed electrical system policy. A portion of your electric bill today goes to pay off the costs that resulted from the ill conceived deregulation law of the1990s. We cannot afford a repeat of that disaster.
Prop. 7 would mandate California utilities use renewable energy for 50 percent of electrical energy production by 2025. A 50-percent mandate may well be beyond the ability of power producers, electrical grid operators and utilities to deliver with reasonable prices and reliably. Prop. 7 does not adequately address the size, complexity and cost of the huge infrastructure building program required to achieve its goal.
The state has made great strides in increasing the amount of renewable energy, but to force the rate of growth required by Prop. 7 is not in keeping with the concept of a sustainable economy. Many of the renewable technologies that will come on line to meet the energy requirements of the future are still in the very early stages of development and must be given the chance to grow organically. California should move toward a renewable energy future that rewards efficiency, reliability and cost effective delivery of green power.
By locking in a 10-percent price premium and requiring a two-thirds vote to modify, Prop. 7 cannot respond to a renewable energy industry that is experiencing rapid growth and technological innovations. California can and should set far-reaching and aggressive renewable energy goals; but they must be based on a thoughtful and deliberate electrical system policy. Prop. 7, though well intended, is the wrong plan for our state. No on Prop. 7.
Evan Willig, vice chair
Lake County Democratic Central Committee
Vote for ban is a vote for discrimination
Please don”t allow the Religious Right the chance to write discrimination into our state constitution.
Gays should have the right to marry in a church that recognizes them or by a civil ceremony. That is a right of every American. When you start taking the rights of Americans away by a Constitutional ban, then where will that lead us?
Just suppose an organization against all religion wanted to ban, say Mormons, from operating in our state or their county and they got a proposition that is going to deny them that right and not only the right to practice here but a Constitutional Ban on them. How would they feel? How would any religious organization feel if they knew just how much they were hated because they were different and wanted their rights stripped?
Think about it. Say “No” on Proposition 8.
Dominick J. Di Noto
Cloverdale
Prop 8 restores definition of marriage
Prop. 8 is the same 14 words California voters approved before, but this time it will be put into our constitution. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The letter from Lenny Matthews misunderstands the issue (Observer*American, Sept. 3). She said, “Marriage equality is a core civil liberties issue.” This is incorrect.
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. It originated from God, therefore neither civil nor church law can alter the basic meaning or structure of marriage.
The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners in the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage.
For several reasons same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage. Same-sex union is not based on the on the natural law, and it cannot cooperate with God to create new life. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union, therefore it is wrong to equate their “relationship” to marriage. When marriage is redefined to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and weakened.
To uphold God”s intent for marriage is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons should be accepted with respect and sensitivity.
Some benefits currently sought by person in the homosexual unions can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example: individuals can agree to own property jointly, can designate a beneficiary, and can name a person who has the legal right to determine end of life issues if one is incapacitated.
Yes on Prop 8 protects the people”s will and restores the definition of marriage.
Carol Bohner
Ventura
Don”t forget to write!
The Clear Lake Observer*American welcomes letters responding to articles and opinions that have appeared in this newspaper, as well as on topics of general interest. Letters can be sent to letters@clearlakeobserver.com or mailed to PO Box 6200, Clearlake, CA 95422. Please include complete name, address and telephone number. Anonymous submissions will be discarded.
