Crime Measures on the Ballot

National Public Radio has this article by Meg Anderson on crime-related measures on the ballot in various states. And of course, because it is NPR, the article lists to the left. Even so, it does have some interest.

California’s Proposition 36 is described as ” a proposition that would undo changes made a decade ago that lessened the punishments for certain crimes.” That is potentially misleading. It doesn’t repeal 2014’s Proposition 47, but rolls back some of its more poorly thought-out provisions. “Among other changes, the proposed proposition would turn some misdemeanors – certain kinds of theft and drug crimes – into felonies, and lengthen some prison sentences. It would also require people facing certain drug felonies to go through treatment.” That’s a decent quick summary.

California is far from alone in rethinking the soft-on-crime trend:

Similar conversations – about how to punish people for crimes they commit – are happening in other states as well. A proposition in Colorado would make people convicted of certain violent crimes serve more time in prison before they can be eligible for parole, and another would take away the right to bail in first-degree murder cases.

We will be interesting in seeing how that goes.

In Arizona, voters will consider adding a new felony called “sale of lethal fentanyl,” in cases where someone knowingly sold fentanyl to a person who then died of an overdose. That is part of a larger immigration proposition in the state meant to crack down on migrants crossing the border, though data shows most people sentenced for trafficking fentanyl are U.S. citizens.

That last statement makes it sound like the measure is based on a false factual premise, but actually the statistic cited is irrelevant. The porous border being one of the prime sources and the citizenship of the people convicted for trafficking it after it arrives have little to do with each other.

The story quotes an advocate on the overall trend of ballot measures:

Lauren Bonds, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, says ballot items like these signal a backlash.

“Most of the ballot measures that we were voting on in 2020 were more progressive in nature in terms of reducing penalties. And now we’re really seeing a reaction to that,” she says. “That is in large part in response to the perception that crime has increased.”

And the quote from an advocate for the other side? [Crickets.]

Again, the obligatory half-truth on statistics:

However, the latest crime data, released last month by the FBI, shows crime rates around the country are largely falling. What’s more, research shows harsher punishments don’t effectively deter crime.

The first sentence refers to the initial release of 2023 data. And what about the fact that the initial 2022 data a year earlier was later quietly revised to change a fall to an increase? Isn’t that relevant to the overall picture? Crickets again.

The second sentence is a gross oversimplification of what “research shows.” The link goes to a one-pager that NIJ put out eight years ago giving one person’s opinion. That page also says, “Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.” But hey, it fits the approved narrative, so details like that don’t matter.

There are some measures on re-funding the police:

In Colorado, voters will decide whether some state revenue should go to a fund for police recruitment, retention, training, and benefits. In Arizona, a proposition would establish a $20 fee on every criminal conviction, which would be paid to the families of first responders killed on the job. And in Missouri, an amendment would use court fees to support police salaries and benefits.

Supporters say these ballot items would give much needed resources to law enforcement. Many police departments are understaffed, and increasing pay is often put forward as a solution.

This is followed by a quote from an advocate for one side. No prize for guessing which side.

But the measures on the ballot are not all on one side:

In Nevada and California, voters are deciding whether to remove language in their state constitutions that allow slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

The language in question does not allow slavery. No people are being treated as property to be bought and sold. The exception, dating back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, makes an exception to the prohibition of involuntary servitude so that prisoners can be made to work. California Proposition 62 of 2016, to abolish the death penalty, had a mandatory work requirement. It was endorsed by numerous high-ranking California Democrats. Are the people who endorsed Proposition 62 in favor of slavery? I don’t think so, and I am not either, for the record.

Mandatory service requirements are not slavery. The military draft is not slavery. Jury duty is not slavery. Work requirements for prisoners are not slavery.

There are also some marijuana and magic mushroom measures on the ballot in Florida, both Dakotas, and Massachusetts.

The article concludes with yet another quote from a soft-on-crime advocate with the notorious Vera Institute.