Final Thoughts on California’s Proposition 57

Vote 2016The so-called “Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” overturns four decades of criminal justice laws that have lowered crime rates in California. The Proposition allows tens of thousands of violent, dangerous and career criminals to be released early.
 
It gives Department of Corrections bureaucrats the Constitutional Authority to reduce sentences for “good behavior”, even for inmates previously convicted of murder, rape, child molestation and human trafficking,
 
Prop. 57 disregards previous criminal history and sentences imposed by Judges for repeat and career criminals, treating the worst career criminals the same as first-time offenders
 
It unravels decades of work to provide crime victim rights, protect communities, and hold criminals accountable for their actions. Key provisions of Marsy’s Law, “3-Strikes and You’re Out”, the Victims’ Bill of Rights, Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, and the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, are either overturned or neutered.

Don’t believe the lies:

If you believe that rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex acts with minors, drive by shootings, assault with a deadly weapon, taking a hostage domestic violence involving trauma, supplying a firearm to a gang member, and lewd acts upon a child, are violent crimes, then you must vote NO on Proposition 57. Otherwise we will revert to a time when crime was rampant, victims were plentiful, and the dark heart of evil infects our communities.
 
Don’t be fooled by slick rhetoric. In recent months the California Attorney General and the F.B.I. have published separate studies that demonstrate a ten percent rise in violent crime in the last year alone. If you haven’t done so already, when you go to the poling precinct tomorrow vote NO on Proposition 57.

Our Nation

By Collene Campbell

Collene & Gary Campbell

Collene & Gary Campbell

Hi, I’m back home from Washington D.C. and thought you just might like to see one of the many articles regarding our extremely difficult effort to help save lives by balancing our U.S. Justice system.  Sadly, the accused criminals have 23 rights in our U.S. Constitution and their victims have not a single right.  Yes, that means the killers of our only son, Scott and the killers of my only sibling, (the best man at our wedding 61 years ago) auto racing legend, Mickey Thompson and his wonderful wife Trudy. Had not a single right in that great document (American’s U.S. Constitution), while the killers had 23 rights.  Obviously, that is why it took so long to get to and through the trials.  It is not only devastating for the families, it is also a huge tax burden and very bad for the safety of all citizens.

Mickey & Trudy Thompson

Mickey & Trudy Thompson

Gary and I are getting very old (or at least I am) and before we check out, we badly want to leave it a safer country for future generations.  Our three murdered family members should and would be alive if the justice system worked as intended.  The murderers of our family should have all been in prison prior to killing our family and that is pretty much what happens in all homicide cases.  Our forefathers did not intend for evil people to have rights and the hard working good Americans to have NO rights.  However, when the U.S. Constitution was written the victims or their families were in the courts defending themselves.  It was a much different time.

Scott Thompson

Scott Thompson

Please call, write, or email your U.S. Representative (Your Congressman) asking them to sign on to House Joint Resolution 40 (H.J. Res 40), the Victims’ Rights U.S. Constitution Amendment.

 

If you don’t know who your Congressman is, please look it up or call your city hall.  Please know, we certainly never thought our law abiding family could be devastated by murder however, it can happen to ANYONE.

 

Please let us know if and when you take the few minutes to notify your Representative asking them to sign on H.J. Res. 40.

 

This is a huge undertaking and our justice system needs to be brought up to date, which will require two-thirds of the House and the U.S. Senate and then ratification of three-fourths of all the States.

 

Connecticut Justice or a Travesty of Justice?

 

On Friday, August 10, 2012, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Thomas Corradino awarded $52,666 in damages to Madeline Gleason, the former girlfriend of missing person and presumed murder victim Billy Smolinski. Gleason had sued Smolinski’s family members for severe emotional distress, claiming that they had posted missing person posters about Billy near Gleason’s home and the bus route that she drove. That the Judge agreed with her is nothing less than a travesty of justice.

 

One of the proven techniques for recovering missing runaway children and adults is to post flyers of those children in neighborhoods where they are thought to be hiding out, and at venues where they are known to hang out: places like malls and fast food outlets. The goals are many: to acquire credible leads; and to hopefully flush out the missing person and encourage them into returning home. An objective of this technique is to see if the flyers are removed from a particular location. If so, you may be closing in on the missing person or the person responsible for their disappearance.

Jan & Bill Sr. with their son’s missing flyer

When your child is missing, you want to get the word out. You talk about it, you post flyers and you beg for television time. If you can make enough people award of a missing child, you have a greater chance of affecting a recovery, whatever that means. In fact, that is the theory behind the Amber Alert program.

 

That is why missing person flyers are ubiquitous in our society. They are in storefronts in communities where children are missing, and they are a staple on cable television shows like Nancy Grace and Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell. Broadcast television features missing persons regularly on shows like Dateline, 48 Hours and 20/20. Missing person profiles, discussion groups and real crime forums have proliferated in social networking communities in recent years. Even Walmart features missing persons in all of their facilities through the United States. In fact, it is difficult to avoid missing persons in modern society, so for a judge to legitimize the convoluted claims of an ex-girlfriend, who was caught on camera tearing down those flyers, is unconscionable.

 

Of course, there is more to this story than missing person flyers. We know that Madeline Gleason was cheating on Billy Smolinski with another man, a married local politician, and that Billy disappeared shortly after finding this out. We know that a multi-jurisdictional law enforcement task force believes that Madeline Gleason’s son killed Billy Smolinski. Unfortunately, we also know that the Smolinski family continues to grieve and search for their beloved son.

 

Billy Smolinski and his dog Harley

I’ve known Jan Smolinski for many years. She is an honorable woman who is heartbroken that her son has been missing and presumed dead for nearly 8-years now. Like me, or the family of Sierra LaMar or any of the other parents of missing kids who stare teary eyed into the camera and say that, “We will never give up hope,” and defy stark realities, Jan Smolinski is a crime victim. The state should be protecting her, ensuring that she has the right to maintain her dignity and be treated with respect. Instead, because of the actions of Superior Court Judge Thomas Corradino, she and her family are being re-victimized by the power of an entire state. They have not only lost their son, but are in jeopardy of losing their life savings.

Madeline Gleason holding Billy Smolinski missing flyer

One of the fundamental functions of government is to protect the innocent and shield victims of crime. Instead Connecticut has chosen to pile indignity upon loss. This is heartbreaking and should not be allowed to happen. When a culture choses to devour the downtrodden, than that culture has lost its way.

 

Posting missing person flyers is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Or is it? What kind of message is being sent if one can become liable to legal action for simply posting a flyer of a missing person, regardless of whose neighborhood or bus route it is posted in?