Proposition 57: Do You Feel Lucky?

Sponsors say Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, will save taxpayers money by making nonviolent felons eligible for parole earlier and improve fairness by having judges, not prosecutors, decide whether juveniles are tried as adults. Critics call it a "get out of jail early" card. I would add that it's the sort of dishonest measure that becomes commonplace under unaccountable one-party rule. State pols gamed the system to get it on the ballot. The title promises public safety when it could result in the early release of repeat offenders. Yet California voters are likely to approve Prop. 57 because they don't know what the measure really does.

Prop. 57 originally was submitted as a measure to let judges decide whether juveniles are tried as adults. Later, sponsors changed its focus to expand adult parole. In Sacramento, when you gut a bill and replace it with something else, it's called "gut and amend."

The California District Attorneys Association went to court because sponsors changed the language after a 30-day public comment period. (A 2014 reform was supposed to improve the initiative process by giving critics a chance to comment and proponents an opportunity to correct their product. Instead, Gov. Jerry Brown and company used the new timetable to rewrite the language when it was too late for a fix.)

The California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in Brown's favor. In his lone dissent, Justice Ming Chin lamented the top court setting a precedent of turning a "true reform" into "just another rule that can easily be evaded with a little imagination."

California has been under U.S. Supreme Court order to reduce the prison population -- which Brown has overseen. But also, this is personal for Brown. In 1976, during his first stint as governor, Brown signed a determinate sentencing law with fixed penalties for serious crimes. "I didn't think about incentives," Brown recently told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. "My point was to avoid arbitrariness and have a clear punishment."

The second time around, Brown sees a prison system that is "criminogenic" -- he means, prison creates more crime -- "because it is run by gangs. There's dope, violence, intimidation and rape." Most inmates are going to get out anyway. If Prop. 57 passes, more inmates will participate in rehabilitation programs, Brown argues, as he frames Prop. 57 as "a scheme where people have to earn their way out."

Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation maintains that California's crime rates have been low over the past decade because of laws like the 1994 "three strikes" measure that increased sentences for criminals who re-offend. Prop. 57 peels back that focus.

The ballot argument assures voters Prop. 57 "does not authorize parole for violent offenders." But as former GOP Gov. Pete Wilson points out, that's not entirely accurate. Prop. 57 would allow the state to parole an inmate after serving time for shoplifting, a nonviolent crime -- but even if the shoplifter had an earlier conviction for assault with a deadly weapon that lengthened the sentence under three strikes. "You are putting a dangerous person back on the street," Wilson warned. Instead of concentrating on keeping recidivists behind bars, he added, "we will be letting out people who are in fact dangerous."

By making repeat offenders as eligible for parole as first-timers, Wilson argued, Prop. 57 also would undercut automatic sentence enhancements for ex-cons who carry guns when they re-offend. And because Prop. 57 is a constitutional amendment, it's extra hard to fix.

What could go wrong? Well, in 2014 Californians approved Proposition 47, which downgraded property and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Yet, most voters did not realize they had downgraded gun theft and possession of date-rape drugs to misdemeanors. Last year, violent crime jumped 10 percent. Maybe it was a fluke. Maybe the surge was the result of "reforms" -- see chart -- that cut the state's prison population by a quarter.

The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst estimates Prop. 57's savings to be in the tens of millions annually, but that's based on estimates that 30,000 inmates would become eligible for parole. Brown tells a different story. He told The Chronicle that Prop. 57 would make some 1,300 inmates eligible for parole; likely half, or 700 inmates, would win early release. But if the legislative analyst is right, half of 30,000 inmates could get out of prison early. In short order, California's prison population could drop by a third, to 110,000 from 166,000 in 2010.

Would Prop. 57 free 15,000 or 700 inmates? If sponsors hadn't hopscotched public comment, a vote for Prop. 57 wouldn't be a total crapshoot. Wilson fears Prop. 57 will take California back to the 1970s, when crime was so scary that San Francisco's best-known movie cop was Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry. After a shootout, the detective would ask bad guys if they wanted to bet whether a bullet was left in his .44 Magnum: "Do you feel lucky?" So, 15,000 inmates or 700? Do you feel lucky, voter?

Unless you know the stats behind repeat offenders you will vote NO on this proposition. Start your education. The first 2 will require basic math skills as they only do 45% of the prison population so you will have to extrapolate out to 100%, it’s easy enough to do 90% as you just double it. The second one is the only one done. What is not a part of the stats is the 11 month 29 day facilities, where the offender of minor felonies commit 20-50 felonies, and the recidivism rate is 85%. Serve time is 90 days mostly on the weekends if possible. DUI is the most common.

“When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt,
but protects the corrupt from you -you know your nation is doomed.”-Ayn Rand

Recidivism
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Parole and Probation
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/ppvsp91.txt

Black on black Murder
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls#disablemobile

2014 downgraded drug possession and many property crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor.
http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2015/08/16/in-the-wake-of-proposition-47-california-sees-a-crime-wave-n2039121?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

OK...so around 70% of criminals released from prison are back behind bars within 2 years, and they think letting them out early will solve anything...riiiight...

What does this sound like?

Year round central AC and heat. 3 meals a day. Free roof over your head.

All the books you want to read.

Free legal assistance.

Free medical and dental.

Don’t have to work at all unless you want to.

Cable TV 24/7.

Hard drug problems as bad as on the outside.

Gang problems as bad as on the outside.

Sound like a deterrent?

Any of these people ever think about making prison resemble something like prison again? Didn’t Sheriff Joe see a serious reduction in crime when he set up his tent jail? Nobody wanted back in there, so they either moved somewhere else or tried to stay out of trouble.

These idiots are ignoring the real problems. Mandatory minimums may sound good on the surface, but a lot of the overpopulation problem in prisons can be traced back to people with 1st offenses for minor scrapes with the law, like some guy with 4 prescription pills doing 5 to 10 years, when before mandatory minimums the judge had the discretion to start with a lighter sentence given the less serious nature of the offense and the lack of criminal record in many cases. Even a first time burglary could be a lower sentence, and maybe justified, for a first offender. It worked for a long time...Many people got 6 months to a year in the big house and decided they didn’t want any more. Now with so called human rights leniency policies, they can get 5 years, be on the street in 2, and know it’s no big deal.

On the other hand, some states like Texas now have a repeat offender clause, once you’ve been in a few times and still getting busted, off you go for 20 to life.

Then you have early release efforts like this, which does not help a thing. Since we already see a 70% return rate, if you make it known you’re pushing further early releases, people are less likely to be afraid of jail time. I’ve seen guys say “I can do 2 years standing on my head.” They know prison is no longer a punishment. I’m not sure I listed all the perks above, but that doesn’t sound much like a deterrent to me.

Then you have gang issues. people go to prison and know they can just join up with the gang on their side, and have a measure of safety in numbers.

In some cases corrupt prison guards also help, by either looking the other way or helping inmates get contraband inside the bars. Drugs, alcohol, even weapons.

And who has been pushing all this nonsense? Liberals. Human rights, they say. OK so did the guy observe his victim’s rights when he broke into an innocent person’s house and stole everything he could carry off? Did he worry about his victims rights when he raped her and beat her to a pulp or killed her? They never mention that...

Early release has already proven to be a mistake. Shut off the TV. Set the thermostat on 80 in summer, 50 in winter. No work, you do every single day of your time. Work and get 3 for 2. No other early release except for standard parole, in place for many years. Stop mandatory minimums. In addition to putting many 1st time or minor offenders in for a long time, prosecutors also use it to get votes. Look how many criminals I put away, vote for me...but never do a thing to actually fix the overlying problems. And many of the people they put in jail should have been there for much shorter periods. I read an article a while back about the guy I mentioned above, 10 years for 4 prescription pills, 1st offense. Why wouldn’t that qualify for 6 months? Especially since he was not a typical “drug dealer”, just selling a pill or two to friends. Nothing like the heroin dealer selling it for a living on the ghetto streets for the past 3 years, already busted a half dozen times. (think Freddie Gray, rap sheet as long as your arm, already busted for selling heroin in the exact same spot.) Quite a difference.

Yeah I know some of this sounds a little liberal...no, it’s logical. If a 1st timer steals $25 in a mugging without a gun, why should he do the same 10 years as the guy who pulls a gun at a convenience store and walks away with $300, (Cash and merchandise) or steals a car and uses it to make his getaway after 14 burglaries? Mandatory minimums means the same two, the 1st offender on a lesser offense and the career criminal, are no longer treated as different situations in many cases. The judge should have some leeway to use common sense. But the system as a whole also should not make it less a deterrent by making life in prison as easy as possible either. Parole boards should be tougher, early release should be stopped, accountability in prison management should be a priority...The people who elect judges should also realize all the liberal judges need to go. Good luck with that though...

I can only think of 2 instances I would agree with mandatory minimums. Rape and murder. 20 years period for even 1st time, no parole. Stupid enough to make it to 3 times? (any serious felony) Throw away the key or a needle in the arm. Oh yeah, death row. Sit there for 15 to 20 years running through appeal after appeal...cut it down to 2 appeals and see ya...I don’t like 2 appeals, but I have to give it a chance...maximum 2 years on death row and you’re outta here.

Illegal immigrants are a serious problem too, Trump should try to make arrangements with Mexican officials to send convicted illegals to a Mexican prison, sentencing done by our judge. Or tell Mexico they can help pay for the upkeep of their citizens while behind bars here in the US. That can be done the same way as getting them to pay for the wall, I’ve described my method several times. Same thing would work here. Cut off their foreign aid and tourist money, they’ll listen...

As an alternative: “military field conditions” are, by international treaty, *not* “cruel or unusual”. This is what Joe Arpaio created with his ‘tent city jails’.

Importantly, tent city jails cost just a fraction what ‘brick jails’ cost. And you can put them about anywhere. So this provides a solution for “youthful offenders”. Put them in rural tent city jails, performing tasks that benefit “the environment”.

I personally think that one of the best environmental projects such offenders could do would be to dig giant artificial depressions in areas prone to flooding.

Imagine a flood prone river. On either side of the river at intervals, you dig giant depressions that sit empty until the river reaches flood stage. When it does, the depression is “lower than downriver”, so water flows into it until it is full. Then the next depression takes over.

So much of the flood is lost to the depressions that it stops being a flood. The depressions are not lined, so the water they have caught either goes into the ground or is lost to evaporation.

But the bottom line is this keeps “youthful offenders” hard at work for decades, instead of giving them early release.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.