Serving Bread

Proposition 9 seems to expand the rights of victims of violent crimes and limits the options and rights of the criminals who commit them. Like other propositions on the ballot, it does so by amending the State’s Constitution.

Why I’m weary of amending our state’s constitution

Three of the twelve ballot initiatives before the voters will make changes to our state’s constitution. I recognize that most of us voters are not as familiar with California’s constitution as we are with our federal constitution. My understanding of our federal constitution is that the framers made it possible to amend but extremely difficult.

To amend the constitution, both houses of Congress must approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president’s signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be “ratified” or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

But when it comes to the California constitution, we just need several hundred thousand shoppers at Rite Aid to sign a petition (let’s face it, most of us sign for the sake of signing), and a simple majority of voters to vote for the proposition and we amend our State’s Constitution.

The advantage of making a ballot initiative a constitutional amendment is that it limits the power of the courts to intervene. But what this process has done is cheapen our constitution and our democracy. While we may complain of “activist” judges, we are circumventing checks and balances by amending a document that has more power and implications than most of us realize.

Back to my thoughts on Proposition 9

Proposition 9 will strengthen the rights of crime victims and their families, and makes it more difficult for criminals to be re-released in society. One of the concerns of our state is prison over-population. There are a couple of other measures on the ballot that try to address the crisis of our over-population. Proposition 9 will continue the burden on our state’s jails and prisons. Early release of criminals or alternative methods of confinement (such as GPS systems) would be hampered. Sheriffs would have less latitutde in modifying sentences. (Remember the Paris Hilton Saga?)

I have mixed feelings on whose rights are more important—the victims’ or the criminals’. One of the important tenets of our Democratic system is that it extends the benefit of doubt to suspects. We are all to be innocent until proven guilty. And when found guilty, our system assures that we preserve rights to the criminal. Whether we like it or not, our constitution guarantees certain rights to suspects and criminals.

And as a society, we have put substantial energy in rehabilitation because we believe that people can be rehabilitated to re-enter and re-engage society. We hold the tension of criminals facing the consequences of their actions and the idea that the prison system can serve as a corrective that rehabilitates.

There are several provisions in Proposition 9 that I like. I think that victims’ legal rights should be expanded, allowing families to pursue restitution from offenders who have been convicted. I like that this proposition guarantees that crime victims are notified and are able to participate in parole hearings.

But I do have two concerns: 1. It restricts parole proceedings (criminals would have to wait longer before they go before the parole board) 2. It continues to put the stress on our already over-populated county jails.

My chief contention though is that this proposition amends our State’s Constitution. I am not sure what the litmus test should be on when and how our constitution is to be amended, but Proposition 9 does not fall in that category for me.