"Hey Judge, I'm a drug addict too."
Next Tuesday, Californians will go to the polls to vote for Barack Obama (except me, of course). We will also vote on a bunch of voter measures, most of which are to authorize our state government to spend billions more on various projects. Proposition 8, which would define marriage as being between a man and woman, has gathered the most publicity out of the state. Yet there is another proposition on the ballot that (in my view) has much more serious consequences. That is Proposition 5, which would replace criminal sentencing for certain non-violent crimes in favor of drug rehabilitation treatment.
Of course, the ads in favor of Proposition 5 claim that millions will be saved in prison costs (Yeah, I guess so if you empty the prisons). They claim that these programs have already saved 84,000 lives. These claims are accompanied by images of clean-looking happy youths walking into the sunshine, etc, etc.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley paints a different picture of Prop 5, which is truly frightening. According to Cooley, this proposition represents a get out of jail free card for tens of thousands of "non-violent" criminals if they assert in court that they are substance abusers in need of treatment. According to Cooley, it would be the prosecution's burden to show the court that the defendant is not a substance abuser.
Here is one scenario as outlined by Cooley:
A burglar breaks into your house, steals your valuables, takes off in your car, steals your ID and charges thousands of dollars on your credit cards. He is arrested, goes to court and says, "I am a drug addict", or he shows signs of being a substance abuser, for example, he shows up in court high or drunk. Unless the prosecution can prove otherwise, jail/prison is taken out of the equation because he is a "non-violent offender". Instead of jail, he goes to a drug rehabilitation facility.
Of course, under this system, billions would have to be spent to build new rehabilitation facilities. All this for criminal defendants, while non-criminal substance abusers have to depend on insurance or family financial assistance to go into treatment, which in most cases they could never afford themselves.
According to Cooley, the measure is being banked by four billionaires, one of whom is none other than George Soros, and if you don't know who Soros is-you should. This Hungarian-born financier made his fortune by speculating on and nearly breaking the British pound. Now he runs the Soros Open Society, which among other things, is pushing for such things as drug legalization and also financing the Democratic Party including Obama's campaign. Soros, in short, is trying to help establish a socialist society in America, and he is using his vast fortune to accomplish that goal.
If Proposition 5 passes Tuesday, Cooley predicts chaos in our criminal court system. One would think common sense would prevail, but this is California.
A burglar breaks into your house, steals your valuables, takes off in your car, steals your ID and charges thousands of dollars on your credit cards. He is arrested, goes to court and says, "I am a drug addict", or he shows signs of being a substance abuser, for example, he shows up in court high or drunk. Unless the prosecution can prove otherwise, jail/prison is taken out of the equation because he is a "non-violent offender". Instead of jail, he goes to a drug rehabilitation facility.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it, Gary. Would the law make breaking/entering, grand theft, and fraud legal? Wouldn't he still have to answer to those charges?
Gary,
ReplyDeleteNext Tuesday, Californians will go to the polls to vote for Barack Obama (except me, of course).
Count me in for the except me!
As for prop 5, it is just another tax expenditure this state doesn't need, I mean how long did it take our failing state to come up with a budget.
I agree, I hope commomn sense would prevail but you're right this is California, liberal base and tactical planning ground of the free world.
I will be praying hard this weekend for all of the issues on the ballots, I hope the right thing will prevail in the end!
So a rampant capitalist is trying to establish socialism? Hahaha, riiiiight.
ReplyDeleteI am voting YES on 5, against the greedy CO union.
Lance, I thought I explained it pretty clearly according to Steve Cooley's explanation. The "consequences" of the act would be to go to drug rehab instead of jail.
ReplyDeleteFaithful Remnant.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you. But this is California.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteYou clearly don't know much about George Soros, but since you are a socialist, you might find a lot of things you like in him. Believe me, he is a socialist to the core. His money is behind a large part of the Democratic Party's more dubious activities.
I am with you on the Corrections Union, but I don't like unions to begin with.
As for Prop 5, even you should be concerned about a measure that keep tens of thousands of criminals out of jail. But, then again, I guess you think jails and prisons are bad.
PS to Bryan,
ReplyDeleteSoros has of course involved himself in capitalism. But while he advocates taxes for the rest of us, he kepts his billions in off-shore accounts.
Lance, I thought I explained it pretty clearly according to Steve Cooley's explanation. The "consequences" of the act would be to go to drug rehab instead of jail.
ReplyDeleteGary, it was an assertion, not an explanation. Unless the law specifically states that you can get away with those crimes because you're on drugs, then it's a complete non-sequitor.
Gary, I don't know how you can logically believe that someone who is a big time capitalist like Soros is actually a socialist. I think you simply fail to understand that people can hold liberal social and economic views can still be capitalists and fully support capitalism. It's like you think anyone the slightest bit the left of Joe Lieberman is a closet socialist. Well, you're just dead wrong. We have had plenty of Democrat presidents. We've had Democratic controlled congresses. We've always been a capitalist society. You need to purge yourself of this laughably ridiculous idea that liberal = socialist. Actions speak louder than words. If it walks like a capitalist, talks like a capitalist, guess what.. it's a capitalist!
ReplyDeleteFaithful Remnant: if prop 5 is passed and prop 8 is defeated, even after you prayed and asked for God to make the opposite happen, will you accept that it was God's will to allow gays and lesbians in California to marry? Or is God only involved when things go the way you want them to?
Lance,
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous cases where judges sentence offenders to drug rehab en lieu of jail. Technically, they are not getting away with it because they are convicted and sentenced. It is Cooley's position that this measure would result in tens of thousands more convicted criminals to get rehab instead of jail. Keep in mind that the prosecution would have the burden of proving the def was not a substance abuser. This is crazy.
Another point I raised was the issue of convicted criminals going to rehab while so many others who are addicted but not committing crimes (other than buying and using the drugs themselves) have a hard time getting treatment without they or their families having to spend a fortune. Seems to me the reasonable thing to do is go out and commit a non-violent crime to get into treatment.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteAll I can say to you is that you don't seem to know much about George Soros and his agenda. I hope you will do the research.
From what I have read, he has apparently written extensively about his views. He believes in a mixed system, which is pretty much what we have right now. We do not have pure capitalism, and it would be a disaster if we did. Even Adam Smith realized this.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I also want to say that I don't like your use of a picture of Charles Manson in this post. Manson is obviously a violent offender and would in no way be effected by this law. You know that. Slapping his picture on a post about letting people out of prison is simply fear mongering.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding me that somebody can be a Christian without shutting his brain off. Your point is something that I always wonder as well. (Regarding prayer versus what happens.)
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteSorry you don't like the picture of Charles Manson, but you really need to lighten up. I stated clearly in the post that this would concern non-violent offenders. My use of Manson was not to make anyone afraid that he might be released, rather in keeping with my usual style of humor.
Don't you liberals have any sense of humor?
Lance,
ReplyDeleteI can't remember where our exchange about tse-tse flies is, so I will reply here.
That 250 grand the govt spent on the mating habits of tse-tse flies sure didn't do anything for my sex life.
How about (here comes a straw man) Fabian Nunez's trip to Bordeaux, France to study the French education system? While there, he dined at 5 star restaurants, stayed at 5 star hotels and came back with cases of fine French wines.
My larger point-aside from the wasted money and boondoggle trips, is that govt is now involved in every aspect of our lives.
Gary, I don't disagree that the government definitely likes to waste money. Your example regarding the trip to France is a good example of that. (And I should also point out that it wasn't a scientific study now was it?)
ReplyDeleteMy point was regarding stupid comments like Palin's where she was dismissive about the study of fruit flies. Basically, her whole argument centers around, "I don't get it; therefore, it's stupid." If she had bothered to do a little research, she'd see how beneficial these studies were for the overall benefit of humanity. Just because it's not as simple as step one, examine fruit fly, step two, find cure for cancer, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have practical scientific benefits.
Of course, there's always the possibility that she does indeed know about how these studies benefited us, but she was counting on the rubes in the audience to just nod their heads and agree with her. That's a much more frightening prospect.
Regarding the Tsetse flies, I tried to look up that particular study, but I wasn't finding much. Still, just because you can't personally think of a direct link between it and your life, that doesn't mean that there isn't one. To be so dismissive of science is...well, there is no nice way of putting it - ignorant. Like I asked you before - have you actually done any real research about that study?
It seems like certain "conservatives" want to send us right back into the Dark Ages. Maybe that's what they mean by "traditional values." Soon we can look forward to blood-letting and a return of the whooping cough, I suppose.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that some of this research just might be done by somebody other than the government? Fruit flies, tse-tse flies, whatever. I mean stem cell research has been going along without the government. Or does every worthwhile endeavor depend on govt funding?
Just wondering.
Of course that's possible. Regarding Palin's comment though, she was referring to government funding of science, and came off as sounding as a gigantic ignoramus, which seems to be par for the course for everything that she says.
ReplyDeleteMy point still stands though. Just because the average person doesn't see the point of a certain branch of scientific research, that doesn't mean that there isn't a point, and it doesn't mean that they won't eventually benefit from it.
"Just because the average person doesn't see the point of a certain branch of scientific research, that doesn't mean that there isn't a point, and it doesn't mean that they won't eventually benefit from it."
ReplyDeleteWith that, you open a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Now you can argue for govt funding for any and every scientific venture. At what point do we say, we can't afford this, so get your own private funding?
The liberal illuminat want to implement softer sentences for criminals, which I don't understand. They're just as violent, because drugs kill people!
ReplyDelete