Proposition 36, on the California ballot for the November 5 election, is being put before voters as a crime-fighting measure. It will make certain felonies that are now misdemeanors and carry longer prison terms.

Three key moral values ​​of our Unitarian Universalist faith are love, a force that holds us together, justice, where racism is dismantled, and equity, where every person is inherently worthy and has the right to flourish with dignity, love and compassion. Voting no on Proposition 36 is consistent with these values.

Proposition 36 is unfair because it treats prior felony convictions as cumulative instead of “letting the punishment fit the crime.” If, for example, someone had two previous convictions for theft of less than $950, the third conviction would result in the offense being reclassified as a felony. Fairness means that the sentence should fit the crime charged, not that the sentence is increased on a third conviction for a relatively minor crime.

Opinion

Because the felony arrest rate among poor people, and especially people of color, is two to five times the rate for whites for drug possession, theft, and vandalism, the increased punishment of Proposition 36 will fall disproportionately, inequitably, and unjustly on those who can least afford it. fines, court costs and imprisonment.

Longer prison sentences are expensive. In California, it costs the state $133,000 a year per prisoner. Recidivism in California prisons is about 40%. Locking up more people has never been the answer to solving our society’s problems. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, hundreds of millions of dollars annually in higher costs would result from longer prison terms and longer and more complicated prosecutions.

Another tens of millions of dollars annually would likely result from net increases in county jail populations and local court-related workloads.

Where would this money come from? In 2014, California passed Proposition 47, which increased funding for mental health, drug treatment, truancy, dropout prevention, and victim services. Last year, the state saved $95 million by providing these preventive services, and overall, the state saved nearly $1 billion! Proposition 36 would eliminate some of these proven preventive services and shift money to programs that focus on punishment.

Supporters of Proposition 36 cite the problems of theft and drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, that need to be addressed. Opponents of Proposition 36 point to laws that have been passed in the past two years. State leaders have increased funding for the prosecution of retail theft and fentanyl trafficking, which has led to more convictions, and they note that lawmakers continue to pass strong laws targeting retail theft rings, illegal online markets and fentanyl .

California does not need Proposition 36 because it is unfair, unjust, too expensive, will cut proven prevention services, and does not recognize the work our elected lawmakers are doing to effectively address the serious concerns of drug theft and trafficking. drugs.

Vote No on Proposition 36!

rev. Tim Kutzmark, Board Chair Ida Jones and Social Justice Team Co-Chair Stephen Sacks are members of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno