Alright, folks, if you thought Colorado’s ballot was missing a bit of old-fashioned tough-on-crime rhetoric, look no further than Proposition 128. Dubbed the “Truth in Sentencing” initiative, this measure aims to make sure those convicted of serious violent crimes stay behind bars for a much longer stretch. Let’s dig into what this proposition is all about and whether it’s the solution to our public safety issues—or just another expensive approach to incarceration.
What Is Proposition 128?
Proposition 128 would amend Colorado’s parole laws, requiring offenders convicted of certain violent crimes—like second-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and serious assault—to serve at least 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole. For those with two or more previous convictions for violent crimes, the measure would require them to serve their entire sentence with no chance of early release.
If you’ve got a hankering for legal text, here it is
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?
What’s the Goal of Proposition 128?
Proponents say the idea is simple: keep violent criminals in prison longer to enhance public safety. Under current Colorado law, offenders must serve 75% of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole. The new measure bumps that up to 85%, with the aim of closing what supporters see as loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to get out early for “good behavior.” They claim this will help deter crime and bring justice to victims and their families, ensuring offenders serve real time for serious offenses.
The Pros
- Increased Public Safety: Supporters, including the conservative group Advance Colorado, argue that keeping violent criminals off the streets for longer periods reduces crime and makes communities safer. They see this as a common-sense measure to ensure that the most dangerous individuals serve more of their sentences without shortcuts (The Colorado Sun) (Colorado General Assembly).
- Accountability for Violent Offenders: Advocates believe that harsher penalties for repeat offenders and violent criminals are necessary. Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers has publicly supported the measure, stating it’s vital for holding violent offenders accountable and preventing repeat offenses (Colorado General Assembly) (Rocky Mountain Voice).
- Victim and Family Justice: Proponents highlight that this measure gives victims and their families greater peace of mind, knowing that those convicted of heinous crimes won’t be out on parole after serving just a fraction of their sentences (Rocky Mountain Voice).
The Cons
- Increased Costs to Taxpayers: Opponents, including the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (CCJRC), argue that extending prison sentences will skyrocket costs. They estimate that implementing this measure could add up to $28 million per year to state spending due to the longer incarceration periods and increased prison overcrowding (The Colorado Sun) (Colorado General Assembly).
- Overcrowded Prisons: Critics warn that Proposition 128 could exacerbate existing issues with prison overcrowding. Colorado’s prisons already face staff shortages and rising costs, and adding years to sentences without considering rehabilitation efforts only makes things worse (Colorado General Assembly) (Rocky Mountain Voice).
- Neglects Rehabilitation and Reintegration: Opponents say this measure focuses solely on punishment, leaving no room for earned time incentives that encourage rehabilitation and reintegration. They argue that it removes opportunities for inmates to show improvement and work toward early release through good behavior (Rocky Mountain Voice).
What the Colorado Blue Book Says
A “YES” vote on Proposition 128 would require a person convicted of certain crimes of violence to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence in prison before being eligible for discretionary parole or earned time reductions, and make a person convicted of a third or subsequent crime of violence ineligible for earned time or discretionary parole.
A “NO” vote on Proposition 128 keeps the current requirement that a person convicted of certain crimes of violence serve 75 percent of their sentence in prison before being eligible for discretionary parole, minus earned time for progressing in personal, professional, or educational programs.
The Bottom Line
Proposition 128 is all about toughening up Colorado’s parole laws, aiming to keep violent criminals locked up for a larger portion of their sentences. If you believe that tougher sentences equal safer streets and want to close parole loopholes, this might be your pick. But if you’re worried about costs, prison overcrowding, and the state’s ability to support such a system financially, then you might want to think twice before voting “yes.”
There’s our objectivity, here’s our vote
We’re voting yes. Violent offenders who have repeated repeated violet criminal acts should stay in jail and away from our communities until they have paid their debt to society. All of it. That used to be common sense, but when was the last time you saw any of that in Colorado? So now we have to vote for it. So we’re a yes on Prop 128.
