|
Jesse Ventura on Crime
Former Independent MN Governor
|
Opposes “Three Strikes”; leave discretion to judges
I’m against legislation that puts the state or federal government on the position of caring for somebody for life for trivial reasons. That’s why I’m opposed to the Three Strikes law, as it’s now written. We should be prosecuting felons severely the firs
time around. If somebody has done a violent crime and served his time, you don’t then put him away forever for stealing cookies. Mandatory sentences are awful. They take power away from judges. Judges should be allowed a certain amount of discretion.
They should be able to treat each case individually. Three Strikes would work fine if it put people away for three violent felonies. But it’s a stupid waste of taxpayers’ money otherwise. Plus, it causes a backup in our court system, because nobody
who gets caught a third time wants to plead guilty and face certain life in prison. Legislators love tough-sounding programs like Three Strikes; unfortunately, it makes them look good at campaign time, but it causes us more problems afterwards.
Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p.157-8
Jul 2, 2000
Crime statistics are distorted to encourage racism
There are dangerously racist overtones in a lot of what the extreme Right has to say. They know that much of America still has a sore spot where race is concerned, and many of them like to peddle their agenda by picking at that sore spot. One example is
the way they encourage racism by distorting crime statistics in minority communities, especially statistics dealing with drugs and violent crime. Many folks on the far Right love to play off the public paranoia they help create.
Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p. 50-51
Jul 2, 2000
No role for governor in crime; it’s for local police
People are always shocked when they ask me what I plan to do about crime as governor and my answer comes back as “Nothing!” Does the issue of crime need to be addressed? You bet it does. But, just as with many other social issues, I don’t think that
legislation is the most effective arena in which to fight crime. We already have tons of laws on the books. Most of those laws would work more effectively if we just enforced them better. As governor, there isn’t a lot I can do beyond that to crack
down on crime. Law enforcement is really a local issue. It’s the cops’ job to tighten down on criminals.
Politicians always like to say “I’m gonna fight crime!” because it makes them sound great and gets them votes. But what can a politician
do to fight crime?
Why, for example, do we let criminals out for good behavior? I think they should set it up so that if your sentence is three years and you misbehave, you’ll do five! That’s the mind-set we need.
Source: Ain’t Got Time To Bleed, p. 36
Jan 1, 1999
Put up with death penalty until life sentences mean life
How come life in prison doesn’t mean life? Until it does, we’re not ready to do away with the death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of “punishment” for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible murderers. Americans
have a right to go about their lives without worrying about these people being back out on the street. So until we can make sure they’re off the street permanently, we have to grit our teeth and put up with the death penalty. So we need to work toward
making a life sentence meaningful again. If life meant life, I could, if you’ll excuse the pun, live without the death penalty.We don’t have it here in Minnesota, thank God, and I won’t advocate to get it. But I will advocate to make life in prison
mean life. I don’t think I would want the responsibility for enforcing the death penalties. There’s always the inevitable question of whether someone you gave the order to execute might truly have been innocent.
Source: Ain’t Got Time To Bleed, p. 37
Jan 1, 1999
Supported death penalty, but now as Governor opposes it
Federal law pre-empts state law. Although Minnesota does not have the death penalty under its laws, the sentence does exist in Minnesota under certain federal laws. Until a sentence of life in prison always actually means life in prison without
possibility of parole, we can not eliminate the death penalty.Note: After taking office, Gov. Ventura changed his mind on the death penalty. Extradition orders are frequently signed by the Governor. As he began signing these orders, Gov. Ventura began
to think about how he could just as easily be signing orders to commute the death penalty. Then he noted how often it seems to occur that a person originally found guilty is later proven to be innocent, especially with DNA evidence. He noted that you
cannot undo the mistake if an innocent person is put to death. He now opposes the death penalty. He continues to believe that a life sentence should mean that the convict will spend the rest of his or her life in prison with no possibility of parole.
Source: 1998 campaign web site, jesseVentura.org/98campaign
Nov 1, 1998
Find compromise between rehabilitation and punishment
Q: Will you support the transformation of our incarceration system to true rehabilitation?A: Yes. We need to find a happy medium between rehabilitation and punishment. Our prisons should not be a place where anyone is happy to go to.
No one should feel there is a reward for criminal behavior. On the other hand, if an inmate truly wants to be rehabilitated and change their ways, we should make it possible for that to happen.
Source: Questionnaire from the Coalition of Black Churches
Aug 29, 1998
Supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs.
Ventura adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The Issue
The major crime issues for the 107th Congress will be: - reauthorization of the juvenile justice program, which established a block grant to states for prevention and delinquency intervention programs;
- reauthorization of programs in the 1994 crime bill, including the state criminal alien assistance program (SCAAP), a reimbursement program to state and local governments for housing illegal alien prisoners;
- the state prison grants program, formally known as the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant program, [where states receive funds based on increasing the percentage of prison sentences actually served]; and
- the Byrne block grant program, a flexible block grant that states use for innovative crime and illegal drug fighting programs.
NGA’s Position
- NGA policy calls for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA)
and supports the underlying principles of the act. However, NGA wants some flexibility in the core requirements, e.g., allowing some accidental contact between adults and juveniles; expanding the hours before removal from 24 hours to 48 hours; holding certain incorrigible juveniles in detention; and relaxing the disproportionate minority confinement record keeping process. The Governors urge maximum flexibility to implement the spirit and purpose of the act.
- The Governors support authorization of the juvenile accountability incentive block grant (JAIBG) program.
- The Governors also support reauthorization of SCAAP and seek to raise the reimbursement ratio.
- For the Byrne block grant program, NGA seeks to continue the current program with flexibility.
- For the state prison grants program, NGA seeks to abolish all requirements and have more flexibility, with the state designating the offender population to be served.
Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA10 on Sep 14, 2001
Page last updated: Dec 02, 2008