Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

3-strikes measure loses ground in poll (Proposition 66 - NO now leads 47-46!)
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 30 October 2004 | Mark Martin

Posted on 10/30/2004 10:15:36 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture

3-strikes measure loses ground in poll

Sacramento -- A campaign blitz mounted in the past 10 days by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and law enforcement officials appears to have shifted opinion against an effort to amend the state's "three strikes" law, according to a statewide poll that had previously shown the initiative winning by a wide margin.

In the first sign of what would be a stunning turnaround, Prop. 66 is in trouble with voters, according to Field Poll results released today that may be the most vivid illustration yet of Schwarzenegger's persuasive powers.

In polling conducted this week, as the governor has focused on beating the initiative, 46 percent of voters favored Prop. 66, while 47 percent opposed it. Only 7 percent were undecided.

The numbers show a big change from polling done last week by the Field Poll, when the proposition was winning 58 percent to 34 percent, and earlier this month, when it was favored 65 to 18 percent.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 3strikes; criminals; felonies; threestrikes; weakening
The weakening of the 3-strikes law is now trailing*!!! Yeah!

* The poll has a margin of error of 4.3 percent.

1 posted on 10/30/2004 10:15:38 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


2 posted on 10/30/2004 10:25:35 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture ("... But the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Glad to see this, Prop 66 was a fiasco in the making.

All sorts of serious crimes would be downgraded. Tens of thousands of serious offender felons would be released onto the streets.

This bill could only be supoported by the likes of the ACLU and leftist attornies hell bent on destroying this nation.

We should do everything in our power to destroy the influence of the designers of these nightmares.


3 posted on 10/30/2004 10:29:20 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
I like the 3-strikes law. I don't care if you get bagged for stealing a pizza on the last strike, you shouldn't have had the other two strikes against you in the first place.
4 posted on 10/30/2004 10:37:50 AM PDT by Freepdonia (Victory is Ours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture; All
Prop 66 is being funded by none other than George Soros. This guy is a madman. Also, a millionaire insurance exec whose son is doing time is spearheading the campaign. He says it's just a coincidence that his son is behind bars.

DO NOT believe the media's propaganda that these criminals will be "resentenced": many of the crimes that they were convicted of would no longer be considered crimes at all if Prop 66 passed. Every CA freeper needs to spread the word that Prop 66 is a cruel hoax by out-of-touch law professors, billionaires with a God complex, and the pro-gang NAACP.

5 posted on 10/30/2004 10:49:16 AM PDT by Holden Magroin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Thank god for this. These poll numbers are encouraging. I hope it is not to late for Arnold to make a difference.


6 posted on 10/30/2004 10:55:42 AM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

From the voter pamphlet:

Selected felonies no longer considered violent or serious offenses under Proposition 66

(snip)

Resentencing of offenders. This measure requires the state to resentence offenders currently serving an indeterminate life sentence under the Three Strikes law if their third strike resulted from a conviction for a nonviolent and nonserious felony offense, as defined by this proposition. Resentencing must occur no later than 180 days after this measure takes effect. The resentencing requirement will result in reduced prison sentences for some inmates and release from prison for others.

Previous thread: Poll: Voters favor softening of '3 strikes' law (13 October 2004)

7 posted on 10/30/2004 10:58:17 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture ("... But the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

I like three srikes laws. Police have a very low rate of catching criminals, so the "third strike" is actually something like the 27th.

Putting repeat offenders inside for a long time is about the only thing we are doing right in law enforcement and prisons these days.

However, it does sound like SOME of the offenses on the list should not be "serious or violent." In fact, I'd just stick to "violent."


8 posted on 10/30/2004 11:19:20 AM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite, it's almost worth defending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Freepdonia

The third strike is at the discretion of, I believe the judge and perhaps the DA. In any case, they consider all the perps entire list of crimes, not just the first two strikes. Criminals who get a third strike, are quite deserving.


9 posted on 10/30/2004 11:34:31 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Freepdonia
I like the 3-strikes law.

Me too...without it, we wouldn't have near as many of those exciting televised freeway car chases by the "what have I got to lose, I'm a 2-striker already" crowd.

10 posted on 10/30/2004 11:42:30 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (Democrats: appear in September, leavin' November 3 - worse than a 1-night stand...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Criminals who get a third strike, are quite deserving.

...and no tears from me.
11 posted on 10/30/2004 11:44:14 AM PDT by Freepdonia (Victory is Ours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

LOL


12 posted on 10/30/2004 11:45:20 AM PDT by Freepdonia (Victory is Ours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

-- An initiative that would restrict the ability of individuals to sue businesses over unfair business practices also was failing. Thirty-two percent of voters said they would support Prop. 64, 37 percent were opposed, and 31 percent were undecided.

31 percent undecided! Dang! What the heck is wrong with people here?


13 posted on 10/30/2004 1:37:35 PM PDT by Simmy2.5 (Kerry, because we should be U.N. Cool!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

But as usual in CA, because I live here it will probably be headed for the courts, just like no illegals I believe Prop 187. SO much for the will of the people.
I am voting NO on 66,NO ON 72,NO on 62,etc
I got my State Ballot Proposition list and I am voting


14 posted on 10/30/2004 1:43:45 PM PDT by RightWingBev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson