No on Prop 57 When news broke out that convicted rapist, Phillip Garrido, was on parole when he had abducted Jaycee Dugard, everyone was shocked. Garrido was on parole and had only served eleven years of is fifty year sentence for raping a girl in 1976. Jaycee Dugard was only eleven years old when she was kidnapped on her way to the bus stop in 1991. Garrido and his wife held Dugard captive for eighteen years, until Dugard and her two daughters were discovered in 2009. Garrido had raped Dugard a numerous amount of times, impregnating her twice. Garrido could be released as early as 2034, after serving only eighteen years. If Garrido was to be released on parole, Dugard and her daughters would have to live with the worry of knowing he is no
…show more content…
Out of these 16,000, include convicted rapists and murderers. “In 1994, Californians saw a state criminal justice system that too often let the worst criminals out of prison to wreak destruction and hurt the innocent, only to be sent back to prison for worse crimes.” (Saunders). One study found that after the first five years of being released from prison, 76 percent were arrested. If we know that the percentage of repeat offenders is so high, then why would we want to release them early? By keeping these criminals locked away, until their sentence is served then we could prevent more crimes from occurring. This prop would modify the Constitution, taking away rights from victims, and granting more rights to …show more content…
“The city paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate last year, according to a study the Independent Budget Office released this week.” (Santora). With this in mind, it really shows how much the taxpayers have to pay in order to keep these criminals off the street. Most of the taxpayers cost for prisoners is way out of the state’s budget. There are different ways that we could save money, such as reducing the time that people sit in jail awaiting for their trial. Some may say that it is too costly to keep these criminals locked away, but I argue that we should not have to give up our safety instead. In the end, citizens’ safety is the number one priority. By not passing Prop 57, we would be making sure to continue to make convicted criminals to finish their entire sentence and to not be released early or become available for
Out of these 16,000, include convicted rapists and murderers. “In 1994, Californians saw a state criminal justice system that too often let the worst criminals out of prison to wreak destruction and hurt the innocent, only to be sent back to prison for worse crimes.” (Saunders). One study found that after the first five years of being released from prison, 76 percent were arrested. If we know that the percentage of repeat offenders is so high, then why would we want to release them early? By keeping these criminals locked away, until their sentence is served then we could prevent more crimes from occurring. This prop would modify the Constitution, taking away rights from victims, and granting more rights to …show more content…
“The city paid $167,731 to feed, house and guard each inmate last year, according to a study the Independent Budget Office released this week.” (Santora). With this in mind, it really shows how much the taxpayers have to pay in order to keep these criminals off the street. Most of the taxpayers cost for prisoners is way out of the state’s budget. There are different ways that we could save money, such as reducing the time that people sit in jail awaiting for their trial. Some may say that it is too costly to keep these criminals locked away, but I argue that we should not have to give up our safety instead. In the end, citizens’ safety is the number one priority. By not passing Prop 57, we would be making sure to continue to make convicted criminals to finish their entire sentence and to not be released early or become available for