Analysis Of Proposition 57: Parole For Non-Violent Crimes

In the year 2016, a proposition that allowed those who were convicted of non-violent crimes was placed on the ballot. It was to go in effect on July 1, 2017. This Proposition would create a gateway for nonviolent inmates, as stated by California Penal Code, to be considered for parole. Overall, Proposition 57, Parole for Non-violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements, should not have passed because criminals that committed serious “nonviolent” crimes would be released from prison. This proposition was meant to release prisoners who have committed nonviolent and non-serious crimes, yet that is not truly the case. Firstly, the list of violent crimes used to determine if a criminal is eligible for parole does not include all those

57 defines them as “nonviolent,” are now eligible for release from prison. As stated in the article, Many Reasons to Oppose Dangerous Prop. 57: Guest Commentary, “It would release criminals who have committed domestic violence, human trafficking, and sex with minors, among other deplorable crimes” (Masson). It is outrageous to think that these crimes are not considered violent when the victims of such actions have been physically injured and emotionally battered. Some victims of these acts were not even conscious when such things were happening to them, thereby qualifying the felony act as a “nonviolent” crime. According to John McMahon, “Under the terms of Proposition 57, persons convicted of raping an unconscious victim would be considered ‘nonviolent’ and would be eligible for early parole.” (McMahon) Although the victim of the crime was unconscious when the act took place, he or she still faces trauma because of the nature of the crime committed on them. This being said, it is unacceptable for a person to take advantage of another when they can’t do anything to defend themselves. Finally, some people have committed similar crimes multiple times yet could also be eligible for parole. For example, a man named Andrew Luster was convicted of about 86 accounts of poisoning,

57 because they believe it would save the economy money by decreasing California’s prison inmate population. There are many people in prison who have committed serious felonies as well as people who just didn’t pay their parking ticket. According to the UCLA newspaper, the Daily Bruin, “It costs about $47,000 to incarcerate an inmate, almost $8,000 of which falls to the taxpayer.” (2016 Election: Yes on Proposition 57.) This being said, some people believe those $8,000 should go towards funding schools and other necessities but the burden it would set on the economy is one that is greater than finding ways to save money. Furthermore, the amount of money taxpayers contribute to incarcerate only about 17.022% of the total cost, which is not much. The article, County shows strong support for Prop 57 states, “Proponents of the measure, backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, state that it will help reduce the state's prison populations, allow rehabilitation of offenders, reduce disproportionate criminalization of minorities, and save millions for taxpayers.” (Adami) Those who believe this will allow rehabilitation of offenders fail to explain how exactly this would help. If the offenders were to be let out, they would have a difficult time finding jobs because their criminal record will follow them around forever. This being said, how it would help the economy to have many people with criminal records out of prison and not be able to get jobs? This would