SQ 805
Yes or No?
Hell No........
SQ 805 is another hug a thug state question that amends the Oklahoma Constitution, eliminating the use of a criminal's previous felony convictions to enhance the sentence. The changes will apply to individuals that have been previously convicted of non-violent felonies. If a career criminal has already been convicted of a violent felony the change will not apply.
Currently, a D.A. can seek a longer sentence than the statutes allow for those that have previously committed a felony for new crimes if the previous felony conviction was less than ten years prior. If the person is convicted of a crime that carries a five year or more sentence, the sentence can be doubled and even go to life in prison. If the new conviction carries a sentence of less than five years the new sentence can be doubled to ten years maximum. If the new conviction is for a crime that doesn't have a minimum sentence the enhanced sentence can be between two years and life.
Some of this seems a bit harsh and no doubt the legislature should look at things. However, long time readers of the STP newsletter are aware that a twenty year sentence is really four to five years unless it is one of the 85% sentences that are generally for some really, really, bad crimes. Say they tripled a five year sentence on a third felony, fifteen years, might do three years in prison, maybe four.
Another very bad part of Q805 is that it allows already convicted convicts to ask for a modification to their sentence, to be no greater than the current maximum sentence for a first time offender that committed the crime. You would see several thousand career criminals turned loose on society a few months if this state question becomes law.
A very good friend of mine, an attorney, made a point about this enhanced sentencing: “Why punish someone again for a crime if they had already paid their debt to society?” It seems that some D.A.s are misusing the power to coerce people into pleading guilty to avoid a trial. They will make them an offer; take this three year sentence or we will go to trial and ask for a twenty year sentence. Think about those two points while we finish the other issues at hand.
Hmmm, this only applies to “non violent” convictions. To the lay person this sounds like a good thing to support. But remember that there are the likes of Rep. Chris Kannady running things, indeed Kannady is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in charge of these things. You can bet he and the men like him that ran things before have left a mess.
Sure enough, let's look at some crimes that Oklahoma considers “non violent” but I bet you and your loved ones might disagree.
|
|
So how can any assault and battery crime be “non violent”? The guy that flees a traffic stop at high speeds to avoid being arrested on an old warrant and endangers hundreds of other drivers and pedestrians, the child molester that has been convicted four times or more, the criminal that burglarizes your home, the drunk driver that has been arrested a dozen times, a person that smuggles a gun into a prison or jail to aid an escape, or the pimp that keeps his ho's in line with beatings and addictive drugs. All of these crimes and more are violent in nature to anyone with common sense. No matter how many times the child molester is caught and convicted, each time will carry no more sentence than someone that was arrested just once.
SQ 805 is being pushed by the ACLU and Kris Steel among others. These same hug a thug folks were responsible for 781 and 780 that did reduce felonies in Oklahoma by 28.4% in the two years since they passed into law. However, the crimes still happened, the criminals just were charged with felonies or not charged at all because as a misdemeanor any sentence given would likely be less than the time the criminal spent in jail awaiting trial. We are told that we have “saved” $200 million dollars a year by reducing felonies to misdemeanors. Not true, insurance premiums have gone up, crime has gone up, only now the law abiding citizens pay the cost of the increased crime.
Lined up against the liberals is Governor Stitt, the District Attorney Council, and a group called Oklahoma Coalition gainst Dometic Violence and Sexual Assault, and another group called Help In Crisis. These last groups rightly point out that when domestic abusers are not held accountable they tend to escalate the violence till they kill someone. We have a problem with a lot of the domestic abuse cases, it is way too easy for a man to be ruined with false accusations and the women that make the false accusations are not held accountable. You never really know who really started a fight or who escalated a fight, sometimes both parties are looking for trouble or they wouldn't be with these losers in the first place.
Current felons incarcerated using enhanced sentences would be allowed to file an application with the court clerk, have a free lawyer appointed, and if they lose the modification hearing they could appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. If approved, a sentence modification hearing is set, any victim that is registered with the DOC wold be notified and be able to testify at the hearing. And worse, the judge would be forced to consider the estimated cost to the taxpayers for the incarceration of the criminal going forward. Then the court would be forced to use only the maximum sentence that a first offender would receive with all time already served counting against the new sentence.
The OCPA has lost its collective mind and has endorsed this soft on crime state question. Their thinking is that most of the career criminals given enhanced sentences are non violent property and drug crimes, usually drug trafficking. They believe that passing this into law would reduce the prison population by 8.5% in the next ten years, saving between $45 million and $186 million dollars and around $27 million dollars per year in the future. They claim that in 2019 around 2700 prisoners fit the profile for relief under this state question and that Oklahoma prisoners are more harshly sentenced than surrounding states.
The reality is that Oklahoma spends a tiny fraction of the state budget on prisons, 2.2%. Look at the chart below for 2015, the surrounding states spend more by percentage save Arkansas and that by only one tenth of a percent. That is by percentage and Oklahoma's total dollars spent on prisons are likely less, much less, than even Arkansas.
The government has one real reason to exist; to protect me from you and you from me, and both of us from invaders. That is it. You can look at the enumerated powers and pick up roads and a postal service. Why would we be spending money on primary education, colleges, and paying for people's living expenses and health care costs before we made sure the criminals were off the streets?
Putting this state question into our Constitution means the legislature's hands are tied forever more. Only another vote of the people can revoke this mess when crime explodes and people demand something be done. If there are abuses of the existing law, change the law using the legislature so that informed men and women can discuss the ramifications instead of allowing non profit liberal groups to allow criminals to face no consequences for crime.
Crime doesn't decrease when you re classify crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, it just lowers the risk and the consequences for the criminals. Emptying the prisons doesn't reduce crime because the criminals are now out and able to go back to their profession and not worry about being caught again and facing heavy consequences. They won't need an attorney, don't have to post a bail bond to get turned loose while awaiting trial, if convicted they will be out in a fraction of the years they received as a sentence, and once out they aren't going to be forced to pay their restitution, fines, or fees.
Those of us that are parents know that for accountability to work it has to be sure and sudden. You nip bad behavior in the bud by catching problems when they are small and the consequences being certain. If your child made a mistake or was just mean and cruel you would punish the child. Their first time would be light, each additional time would require increasing consequences, to do it any other way would be begging for the child to continue the bad behavior.
And the answer to my good lawyer friend would be this; the repeat criminal isn't being punished for a crime he committed ten years ago after he paid the price. He is being punished for not learning to follow the law the first time. If there are instances where the D.A. is being lazy or vindictive that needs dealt with but allowing repeat offenders to get off with the same sentence as a first time offender is just asking for criminals to laugh at our collective stupidity.
Please vote NO on SQ 805.
