SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Math Junkie who wrote (21803)11/2/2004 1:11:57 PM
From: Math Junkie   of 42834
 
After reading the analysis of the legislative analyst I've changed my mind on Prop 66 and have decided to vote no. I believe the issues I raised previously are still valid, but I think the proposition goes too far in reclassifying the following felonies as not serious: attempted burglary, burglary of an unoccupied residence, non-residential arson resulting in no significant injuries, interfering with a trial witness without the use of force or threats and not in furtherance of a conspiracy, and unintentional infliction of significant personal injury while committing a felony offense. I'm sorry, but burning down a business is serious, and so is burglarizing my home, even if I'm not there. Bribing a witness is not something that inclines me to show mercy, nor is "accidentally" injuring someone in commission of a felony.

The increase in penalties for statutory rape seems to me to be a cynical attempt to increase support by throwing in a "tough on crime" provision.

There are injustices under the current law, but Proposition 66 goes too far. Backers of this initiative need to go back to the drawing board. Requiring the most recent felony to be violent or serious is good. Reclassifying felonies is not.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext