As your elected District Attorney, I urge you to VOTE NO on State Question 805 for the following reasons. 805 offers a Constitutional guarantee to repeat felony offenders that they will not have to face a greater range of punishment than first time felony offenders.
It is really that simple. For example, if 805 passes, then a 5 time second degree burglar (i.e. someone who breaks into your house when you aren’t home) will be constitutionally protected from having to face a stiffer range of punishment than a 1st time second degree burglar.
The same would be true for a 5 time felony domestic abuser and a 5 time felony drunk driver. 805 would constitutionally protect these types of recidivist criminals from facing a harsher range of punishment than 1st time felony domestic abusers and drunk drivers.
As the law currently reads, a 5 time second degree burglar faces an “enhanced” penalty of 4 years to life. That’s correct, a 5 time second degree burglar could receive as little as 4 years in prison for his crime, and given that second degree burglary is considered a “non-violent” offense, such an offender would likely be released in less than a year if not within ninety days on an ankle monitor.
That’s hardly an excessive sentence. In fact, the 4 year minimum sentence is true in regards to pretty much every “non-violent” recidivist felony offender, and that’s the truth, regardless of all the misinformation being disseminated on this topic.
If 805 passes, then a 5 time convicted drug dealer would face a range of punishment of “not more than 7 years,” the same as a 1st time convicted drug dealer. The same would be true of a 5 time convicted second degree burglar and a 1st time second degree burglar.
They would both face the same range of punishment, incarceration in prison “not exceeding 7 years.” For a 5 time felony drunk driver, it would cap his sentence at 5 years, the same potential maximum sentence as a 1st time felony drunk driver.
Under SQ 805, an offender can commit “non-violent” felonies an infinite number of times, and the offender will enjoy a Constitutional right to be sentenced within the same range of punishment as if it was his/ her first felony offense, every time.
Such a proposition is nonsensical on its face. Shouldn’t we reserve Constitutional amendments to at least propositions that make sense?