YES on Prop 6

The arguments against YES on Prop :

❌ Risk to public safety: Opponents argue that by focusing more on rehabilitation and reducing incarceration, dangerous offenders may be released prematurely, potentially increasing crime rates.

✅ In fact, prioritizing rehabilitation strengthens public safety by providing incarcerated individuals with the support they need to address the underlying issues that led them to adopt criminality and return to society better equipped to be contributing members. This approach tackles root causes, rehabilitation helps them reintegrate into society as productive, contributing members, ultimately fostering a safer and more cohesive community.

​

❌ Costs of rehabilitation programs: Some critics believe that the upfront costs of implementing and expanding rehabilitation and reentry programs may outweigh the savings from reduced incarceration, especially if the programs are not effectively managed.

✅ The truth is, investing in rehabilitation significantly lowers the financial burden on taxpayers. Currently, it costs $134,000 per year to incarcerate a single individual. By providing the necessary treatment and support, we can prevent people from returning to a life of crime, thereby reducing these high costs. Moreover, by offering fair wages to incarcerated individuals, they not only reenter society as productive citizens, they also expand the taxpayer base while incarcerated and further contribute to the economy.

​

❌ Doubts about rehabilitation effectiveness: Skeptics point to the inconsistency of success rates in rehabilitation programs, arguing that they may not be as effective in preventing recidivism as advocates claim.

✅ Less than 1% of incarcerated individuals who earn an Associate of Arts degree reoffend, and less than 0.5% of formerly incarcerated lifers do so. Studies consistently show that rehabilitative programs not only transform the lives of individuals but also enhance public safety by significantly reducing recidivism rates.

​

❌ Incentivizing leniency: Opponents worry that prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment could lead to more lenient sentencing, undermining justice for victims and weakening the deterrent effect of harsher penalties.

✅ Instead, it focuses on addressing the root causes of criminal behavior, such as mental health issues, substance abuse, and lack of education or opportunity. By tackling these underlying problems, rehabilitation reduces the likelihood of reoffending, which ultimately enhances long-term public safety. Moreover, rehabilitation programs can be integrated with appropriate sentencing measures, ensuring that justice for victims is upheld while also preventing future harm. Studies have shown that harsher penalties do not necessarily deter crime, while effective rehabilitation can lead to more sustainable outcomes for both individuals and society.

​

❌ Long-term sustainability: Critics question whether the proposed savings from reduced incarceration costs can reliably be sustained and whether those funds will truly be redirected to community and social services as promised.

✅ Moving away from "tough on crime" legislation, which disproportionately harms communities of color, allows for more sustainable, long-term solutions. By investing in rehabilitative practices, we increase the likelihood that individuals will return to their communities more equipped and better prepared than when they entered the system. This shift also puts an end to the harmful practice of prioritizing forced labor over rehabilitation, addressing the real needs of individuals instead of neglecting them. This approach fosters healthier, stronger communities and helps break the cycle of incarceration.