California Proposition 20 was a proposed initiated state statute on the ballot in the 2020 California elections. This initiative would have added more crimes to the list of non-violent felonies for which early parole is restricted, and would have required DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.[1]
According to its ballot summary, Proposition 20 would have
- limited access to parole programs established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses;
- changed the standards and requirements related to Parole in California;
- authorized felony charges in cases of retail theft where the value of stolen goods is between $250 and $950; and
- would have required individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors to submit DNA to a state database.
Proposition 20 was decisively rejected by 62% of Californians, a margin of 24 percentage points. Observers partly attributed its failure to the George Floyd protests bringing negative attention to punitive criminal justice policies
Proposition 20 | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State
CA Legislative Analyst’s – Proposition 20
RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Yes/No Statement
A YES vote on this measure means: People who commit certain theft-related crimes (such as repeat shoplifting) could receive increased penalties (such as longer jail terms). Additional factors would be considered for the state’s process for releasing certain inmates from prison early. Law enforcement would be required to collect DNA samples from adults convicted of certain misdemeanors.
A NO vote on this measure means: Penalties for people who commit certain theft-related crimes would not be increased. There would be no change to the state’s process for releasing certain inmates from prison early. Law enforcement would continue to be required to collect DNA samples from adults only if they are arrested for a felony or required to register as sex offenders or arsonists.
2020-10-28 Reimagining Criminal Justice: The Lasting Effects of the 3 Strikes
Law and Proposition 20 My uncle has spent 25 years in prison because of California’s Three Strike’s Law. Advocates of Proposition 20 want keep him there longer.
Proposition 20: Crackdown on crime The Basics
California
California Quick Guide to Proposition3 _Prop 20
2020-10-16 Prop. 20 sparks debate over effects of criminal justice reform in California
Now a group of prosecutors and law enforcement leaders has placed Proposition 20 on the November statewide ballot, which would expand the list of felonies for which the convicted are ineligible for early parole; increase penalties for repeat shoplifters; and collect DNA samples from adults convicted of some misdemeanors.
Proponents argue that it is needed to fix flaws in past measures that they say are putting the public’s safety at risk, including the early release of potentially violent criminals. But opponents of the measure, who include civil rights leaders, Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Gov. Jerry Brown, say it wrongly rolls back necessary criminal justice reforms as crime has declined in recent years.
2020-08-26 No on Proposition 20, a heavy-handed reaction to justice reforms
Over the last decade, California has undertaken significant criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the state’s prison population.
In 2011, the year the U.S. Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population, the Legislature approved Assembly Bill 109, which shifted greater responsibility for non-violent, non-serious and non-sexual offenders from the state level to the county level. This was followed by Proposition 47 in 2014, which reduced a handful of low-level drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, and Proposition 57 in 2016, which incentivizes prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programming.
Each step of the way, police unions opposed reforms, arguing they would make California less safe. The evidence of this in aggregate is mixed at best, with California experiencing historically low levels of crime.
Researchers in 2016 flagged increases in some property crimes, particularly car theft, following the passage of AB109 as potentially linked to the law. The impact of Prop. 47 on crime rates has been contested, with researchers at the University of California, Irvine determining it had no impact on crime rates, while the Public Policy Institute of California determined it may have contributed to an increase in larceny.
progressiveissuesblog 