|
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday,
October 28, 2004
-
Contact:
- Sandy
Harrison, cell 916/
996-2406;
- Mark
Capitolo, cell 916/ 267-8894
ALL
ACROSS
CALIFORNIA
,
MAJOR
NEWSPAPERS SAY
YES
ON PROP. 66, FIX THREE STRIKES
LOS
ANGELES TIMES:
“Proposition 66 does not eliminate the
three-strikes law. It restores voters’
original intent to keep violent criminals off
the street for good.”
SAN
FRANCISCO
CHRONICLE:
“Prop. 66 restores the original intent of the
“three-strikes” law: to keep violent
criminals off the streets. We recommend a
‘yes’ vote.”
ORANGE
COUNTY
REGISTER
:
“It reforms a law that needs reform. It makes
no sense for taxpayers to for 357 people
convicted of petty theft, 235 of vehicle theft,
69 of forgery and 678 of drug possession to be
in prison for life. Vote Yes on Prop. 66.”
LONG
BEACH
PRESS TELEGRAM:
“We agree wholeheartedly with the original
mission of the three-strikes law: Predatory,
violent criminals should be spared no mercy.
Proposition 66 spares them nothing. It simply
fixes a troubling and expensive unintended
consequence, and deserves a “yes” vote on
Nov. 2.
SAN
JOSE MERCURY NEWS:
“Proposition 66 on the Nov. 2 ballot offers
voters the
chance to correct the excess of Three Strikes,
the harshest such law in the nation. Only in
California
can a third-striker go to jail for 25 years to
life for a felony that is neither serious nor
violent.”
SACRAMENTO
BEE:
“The three-strikes law should keep repeat
violent criminals off the street. As amended by
Proposition 66, it will do just that. Voters
should approve it on Nov. 2.”
SANTA
CRUZ
SENTINEL:
“The change that Proposition 66 would bring
would only improve the original three-strikes
law. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 66.
NORTH
COUNTY (SAN DIEGO) TIMES:
“The underlying goal of the three-strikes
law—to treat repeat offenders more harshly
than first-time criminals—is a good one. Prop.
66 would not obstruct that goal, it would
restore some common sense and justice."
|
