Posted on 02/10/2018 2:08:57 PM PST by jazusamo
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner on Friday said California must consider early parole for thousands of sex offenders, the Associated Press reported.
Janice Bellucci, a Sacramento attorney and president of Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, was the one who filed the lawsuit on behalf of sex offenders. According to Bellucci, the rules the CDCR were putting in place directly conflicted "with the ballot measure's language and voter's intent in approving Proposition 57."
From the Associated Press:
Bellucci argued the measure requires earlier parole consideration for any sex crime not on the state's narrow list of 23 violent felonies, which includes murder, kidnapping and forcible rape.
That could allow earlier parole for those convicted of raping a drugged or unconscious victim, intimately touching someone who is unlawfully restrained, incest, pimping a minor, indecent exposure and possessing child pornography.
The judge said corrections officials can make the case for excluding those offenders as they rewrite the regulations, but Bellucci said she will sue again if officials go too far.
According to a press release on the group's website, Bellucci's focus is primarily on how the term "non-violent felony" is defined:
The focus of the pending lawsuit is how the term “non-violent felony” is to be defined. Although Prop. 57 does not include a definition of “non-violent felony”, petitioners argued that current state law which defines “violent felony” should be used in CDCR’s regulations. If CDCR used that law (Penal Code Section 667.5), only 9 out of more than 100 sex offenses would be excluded from early parole consideration. The judge did not agree with this argument because he said there is insufficient evidence to identify the voters’ intent regarding use of that current law.
According to Sumner, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) must rewrite regulations for Proposition 57 , a 2016 ballot initiative that "supported increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court."
Because Proposition 57, also known as the California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, was written so broadly, sex offenders fall into this category of being considered for early parole. What makes things even more convoluted: when Gov. Jerry Brown campaigned for this initiative, he promised voters all sex offenders would be excluded from being considered for early parole if Proposition 57 passed.
The judge dismissed Deputy Attorney General Maria Chan's argument that Proposition 57 gave CDCR "officials the discretion to exclude any class of offenders whose release might harm public safety."
"If the voters had intended to exclude all registered sex offenders from early parole consideration under Proposition 57, they presumably would have said so," Sumner said.
According to the Associated Press, roughly half of the state's 20,000 sex offenders could qualify for early release under Proposition 57.
Sumner told the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that they must:
• Narrow the scope of who is excluded from Proposition 57 benefits down to those now serving time for violent sexual offenses.
• Inmates who previously served time for a sex crime and are now incarcerated for a different crime must be considered for early release.
Judge Sumner's ruling is disheartening to hear. While his ruling is a setback for sexual assault survivors everywhere, the real fault lays on those who drafted Proposition 57. While their intentions may have been great and they didn't want sex offenders to be included in this now-law, they didn't do their due diligence in making sure the initiative was written in a way that resulted in the desired outcome. And now victims are paying the price.
Ultimately, it's up to the Californians for Public Safety and Rehabilitation committee, which is compromised of various government officials, political parties, organizations and unions to get the ball rolling on correction the language issue. Because there's nothing worse than being a victim who thought you received justice.
With people voting in six different languages interpreting the ballot props, how does ANY of it have meaning in a court of law?
“letter of the law” no longer means anything.
Probably has to do with upending particular GOP controlled Congressional districts.
THAT will be branded a sex offense. Permanent blacklist from society.
The devil is in the details. Your free floating doubt does not a legal argument make.
Exactly! I put that in bold print in the article, typical of moonbeam.
I guess I can’t say “things couldn’t get any worse re law and order in CA.” They could just close all the prisons and have all the cops go home with pay forever, citing that law enforcement and incarceration unfairly target the morally challenged.
I can’t even effing laugh because that is NOT FARFETCHED here.
Wow, you should run for local office in CA. You have the mindset and could win. ;)
The same law, created to empty the crowded jails (getting the illegals out was never an accepted solution you see)k legalized shoplifting. You can now steal up to $900 of merchandise and they won’t come after you. This is not a joke. If the store has security, they will try and catch you and scare you. If they don’t, you will slide your cart outa there and go home. No one will call the cops and if they did, the cops won’t be able to do anything.
No not at all. Blame this on the cesspool of California voters who pay no attention to the details In a proposition when they go the the voting booth
The good people of Calufornia suffer under this tyranny
when we moved, my wife changed her voter registration. At that time in San Diego they asked “what languages do you speak.” She put English, Spanish and Tagalog. Since then, they send her 2 sample ballots Tagalog and English. She called and said I don’t need Tagalog. They continue to send it.
Most Filipinos speak and read English since that is the language in their schools.
Prop 13 was a good proposition
Most since then not so much
In California the conservative voice is pretty much swamped
OH It’s OK. Gov Brown loves to let inmates out early
Tell me about it.
We lived in CA during and before moonbeam’s first 8 year stint as Guv and his Dad’s also.
Glad we got out when we did.
Guess the libs need more voters.
California awash in perverts? When you say it out loud, it’s not really such a big deal.
He let out about 10,000 early 18 months ago and triggered a crime wave in LA Some celebrities who had been burglarized complained publicly.
That sounds like him, glad some people complained.
I wonder if he thought those 10,000 were going to go to college or a vocational school and turn their lives around.
Madness.
Creeping Sharia.
The faithful may take sex slaves.
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.