Arnold Schwarzenegger Lies About Proposition 66

Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It was a proposed amendment to the three-strikes law (implemented in 1994 with Proposition 184). Prop 66 would have required the third felony charge against a suspect to be  violent and/or serious crimes to mandate a 25-years-to-life sentence.  It also would have changed the definition of some felonies. It was rejected by voters, with the majority voting against the proposition.  Proposition 66 is what leads us to our cause NEW BALLOT INITIATIVE: “The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, which will be on the November 6, 2012 ballot.  CATS (LAW) does not want to get rid of the three strikes law, but simply amend it to apply only to  criminals that commit violent and heinous crimes, which is how it was falsely introduced to California voters.  


 

About Californians to Amend Three Strikes Law- CATS (LAW), Inc.

CATS (LAW) is a nonprofit organization established to rally California voters to reform California’s “Three Strikes” Law.  We promote amendment by providing vital information in English and Spanish through various means, including printed literature, US Mail, email, phone calls, Internet web site, sound recordings, and video.

CATS LAW respectively request all MINISTERS throughout California to inform their church members of the
“Get’s Enough Signatures To Modify California’s Three Strikes Law In California’s November Election”.

If passed by voters in November, inmates serving life sentences for petty, non-violent, non-serious crimes will be eligible to return to court for resentencing. Our objective is to take information to California voters to expose the true injustices against our weaker human beings, resulting in alarming annual cost of more than ten billion dollars to operate California’s prison system, all for the purpose of lining the pockets of California prisons with big business profits.

We completely agree that lawbreakers should face consequences for their actions.  However, we also believe the punishment should fit the crime, and not violate any California Constitutional rights, specifically, California Constitution Article 1, sections 15, and 17.  There have been more than 50,000 people incarcerated under the “Three Strikes” Law since its inception.  This law is the harshest law in the country, and it has a high cost billed toCaliforniataxpayers.  It currently costs California tax payers approximately three plus billion dollars each year to incarcerate nonviolent offenders.  As of today, because of “Three Strikes” mandated sentences, 65% of California’s prison population is nonviolent offenders and over crowded.

Need for Reform CATS (LAW) Addresses

In 1994, nationwide attention focused on “Three Strikes” sentencing laws. At that time, California voters approved an initiative by majority vote, mandating prison terms of 25-years-to-life for violent, heinous, repeat felony offenders convicted of a third felony. Shortly after “Three Strikes” became law in California, problems with the “Three Strikes” Law perpetually confront Californians today.  In short, the result has been senseless, unjust prison sentencing of petty criminals, and children as young as fourteen-years-old receiving mandated prison terms of twenty-five-years-to-life, generating profit for the prison system while stickingCaliforniataxpayers with the high costs of footing the bills.

In California’s 2004 election, California voters defeated reform initiatives after Arnold Schwarzenegger mislead California voters with false information, leading voters to believe violent, heinous, three time felons would be released from California prisons (See Video Clip below.)

In reality, no inmate would have been released without jurisdictional process. The amendment would have qualified the unjust sentences affecting non-violent, non-serious offenders, who have unjustly received mandated twenty-five-years-to-life prison sentences for a third non-violent offense, to be corrected by resentencing. The correction, re-sentencing, and/or release could only have happened by jurisdictional proceeding.

Today, California’s “Three Strikes” Law doubles the minimum sentence for two-time felons, and mandates sentences of twenty-five-years-to-life in prison for any third offense. Examples of non-violent offenses that have resulted in mandated twenty-five-years-to-life sentences underCalifornia’s “Three Strikes” Law are:

  • Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
  • Stealing a pack of donuts.
  • Stealing a bottle of vitamins
  • Stealing three cookies
  • Stealing a bicycle
  • Stealing a spare tire
  • Drug possession
  • Weapons possession

The mandated sentencing challenges our humanistic values, California’s State Constitution, and leads to overcrowding of California prisons at an alarming cost of more than ten billion dollars to California taxpayers.  It costs as much as one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($175K) annually to provide housing and medical care for one non-violent, non-serious inmate. This equates to a monthly breakdown of $14,583.33 to lock away a human being in need of health treatment, and/or skills training, rather than prison.

Even more alarming, 73% ofCalifornia’s prison population is comprised of African-Americans and Latinos.  This incarceration rate is disproportionate when compared to the African-American and Latino population inCalifornia.  This means the “Three Strikes” Law is unjust, and amounts to legally sanctioned racial genocide.

As with most things, there is a financial motivation behind the law.  It is more profitable to warehouse non-violent substance abusers inCaliforniaprisons for twenty-five-years-to-life, rather than in treatment facilities as medical patients. Prisons are guaranteed payment of taxpayer’s dollars to house these offenders for at least twenty-five years to life.

Clearly, the cost to house non-violent, non-serious criminal offenders in California prisons represents a gross mismanagement of California taxpayer’s dollars. Not only is it not prudent economical spending, it is flat out wrong to confine a human being to prison for any other reason than punishment equal to the crime committed.

The ultimate goal of “Three Strikes” sentencing is to generate revenue from prison’s big business profits, continuing to yield taxpayer’s dollars like clockwork to foot the bills.  In addition, the law generatesCaliforniastate property ownership of non-violent, non-serious, petty criminals, subjecting them to labor use for little-to-no compensation, while others benefit from their labor.

Prison is meant to be rehabilitative in nature, not forced servitude.  You don’t have to look at California’s “Three Strikes” Law very long to see the economics of Willie Lynch written all over it. In The Making of a Slave, Willie Lynch said, “my teachings will last for 300 years or more, possibly forever if implemented correctly.”

Project Description

CATS (LAW) proposes a plan to rally Californian’s with vital information to reform California “Three Strikes” Law in 2012.  We want the law to appropriately reflect its original intent.  Our plan will accomplish this goal in three phases;

Phase I involves rallies to provide Californians with vital information and voter registration, while associating with music’s captive audience.  “The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 “ will correct and change the Three Strikes mandated sentencing to apply only to serious, violent third offenses.

Phase II will launch CATS (LAW)’s ad campaign for the “YES” vote to install The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012” to become law by majority vote. We will advertise, outlining and expose the true problems with California’s current “Three Strikes” Law, and air our ads on California radio, cable, and network television stations informing Californians of how “The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012” will correct the problems with California’s “Three Strikes” Law, continuing to build momentum with rallies for the “Yes” vote.

Phase III involves changing the California State Constitution by legislative amendment,  repeal  initiative, or referendum in order to have it read specifically in Section 17, “Any “Three Strikes” mandated sentence of twenty-five-years-to-life currently being served in a California prison where the third strike is not violent, the “Three Strikes” sentence shall be deemed cruel and unusual punishment therefore a violation of constitutional rights.  All non-violent third offenders sentenced to twenty-five-years-to life will immediately qualify for re-sentencing by jurisdictional proceeding.”

We can correct the problems with California’s current “Three Strikes” Law with “The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012,” a proposed initiative filed with California’s Secretary of State Initiative Coordinator, and the Attorney General’s Office for title and summary.

CATS (LAW) strategically developed a solid time sensitive plan to rally voters with information for “Yes” to amend.

CATS (LAW)’s cause is supported by celebrities who are willing to engage their name and their captive audiences to associate with our efforts to reach a broad, multi-cultural audience to maximize the efficiency of CATS LAW rallies.

Celebrities will draw their captured audience’s attention by their appearance on television to inform California of the “Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.”