It’s not surprising the Chula Vista City Council voted unanimously to oppose. Prop. 47, the statewide measure that would reclassify some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, release eligible non-violent prisoners to local jail or supervision and divert money from the prison industry to education.
Nor is it too surprising there was no real discussion among council members. Their vote would do nothing but demonstrate Chula Vista’s support or, in this case, opposition, to the matter. When you’re an elected, it’s always safe to vote for something that makes you appear “tough on crime” especially if your vote is merely symbolic.
But what was telling about this vote was the language used to persuade the council to oppose the initiative. In other words, the way an issue or argument is framed says a lot about the person making the pitch.
From the moment the issue was broached by the mayor (along with everyone else who is opposed to the proposed law) people have been beating on the fear tympany with a thick cudgel.
Time and again we heard people say the law, if passed, would release thousands of violent felons back onto the street, the implication being that chaos and lawlessness could soon follow.
Certainly some prisoners incarcerated on felony charges might be back among us, but the law as drafted stated that only those who committed non-violent and non-serious crimes would be eligible to apply to have charges against them reduced from felony to misdemeanor. In other words, there was no guarantee that everyone who was ever convicted of committing a felony was going to walk out of prison. Freedom and reduction would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, if you’re framing an argument you’re only going to mention what you think helps sell your case. Duh!
But imagine if the proposition had been presented another way. Imagine if during a discussion of the issue it had been stated that an estimated $150 million to $250 million in taxpayer savings would be realized, and of that savings the majority would be diverted to education, drug treatment and mental health —some of the same programs that are decimated when budget cuts are implemented.
Or imagine if the argument had been presented this way: In an effort to address and reduce the future number of incarcerated blacks, Latinos and poor —who make up a majority of the prison population — the state will make available millions of dollars to education, which includes outreach to at-risk youth, and mental health and drug treatment programs by trimming costs.
Presented that way the conversation might take a different tone.
But instead we’re hammered with scary whatifs. Fear is an effective motivator. But it’s also a tiresome one. And not very imaginative. Or hopeful.
