|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEATURE: Get Out of Jail Free!Parole Plan Sends the Wrong Message to Offenders and Victims - Page 4by Harriet Salarno, Founder, Crime Victims United of California  On January 10, Governor Schwarzenegger laid out the details of the budget and his specific proposals for closing the gap. A major component of the governor's budget proposal was a 10 percent across-the-board budget cut for all state entities.In response to this 10 percent cut, two proposals from the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation could set in motion the release and unsupervised parole for an estimated 40,000 inmates across the state. While we recognize that the state is facing major budget challenges requiring significant spending reductions, these proposals are not the answer. Not only do they threaten public safety in California, they will certainly increase corrections costs-not lower them, as the administration intends. More specifically, the administration's proposals are flawed in three major ways: (1) The proposals would release an estimated 40,000 offenders into our communities with no supervision or rehabilitation, while cutting local law enforcement funding. Reducing eligible inmate sentences by 20 months will result in the release of approximately 40,000 felons-although the governor's office has cited the release of only 22,000 inmates. That lower number refers only to the number of prison beds being cleared out each year. Since many inmates serve less than a year in prison, they will have to release more inmates (approximately 40,000) to reach the "average daily population" reductions being proposed. In addition, the first 22,000 inmates will be released immediately, overwhelming county resources throughout California. Once the policy goes into effect, roughly 13,000 inmates could be released into Los Angeles County alone during a one-month period. Although the proposal also calls for these offenders to be placed on summary parole, do not be fooled by what this means for offenders and public safety in California. The administration's summary parole policy provides no supervision by parole agents and no authority by parole agents to re-incarcerate the parolee unless he/she is convicted of a new crime. Given the governor's proposed reductions in local law enforcement funding, this influx of criminals into local communities will stretch police and sheriff departments and district attorneys to the breaking point. Finally, without the option to send parolees back to prison if they re-offend while on parole, there will be an increase in new arrests and convictions, which means new police investigations, new trials and new prison sentences-all of which will cost significantly more tax dollars, negating any savings the early release plan may initially save. (2) Too broadly defines "non-violent and non-serious" crimes for purposes of early release-allowing dangerous felons to qualify. Because many vicious crimes against children and others are classified as "non-violent" or "non-serious" in the state Penal Code, the bill would allow the early release of felons convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor, incest, pimping a minor, pandering a minor, or providing a minor for lewd purposes, and other such crimes. A notable example of a non-violent/non-serious offender who went on to commit more heinous crimes is Charles Manson. Early in his criminal career, Manson served multiple sentences for pimping, stealing checks from mailboxes, and stealing cars. (3) Allows criminals convicted of serious new crimes to avoid serving any time in prison. By automatically reducing sentences by 20 months within the early release policy, the state is basically waiving prison time for those convicted of crimes with sentences of two years or less. Here's how: During trial and subsequent processing, the felon spends a couple of months in county jail-time that counts toward time served and day-for-day credits. He is then transferred to state prison to serve the remainder of his sentence-where he continues earning day-for-day credits, thereby reducing his sentence by half. So, for a two-year (24 month) sentence, subtract two months for time served in county jail, then subtract another two months for day-for-day credits earned in county jail, leaving a 20-month sentence remaining. Now, since this bill requires the release of inmates with 20 months or less to serve, this offender would not serve one single day in prison for committing any number of serious crimes, including sodomy of a child between the ages of 14-18, oral copulation of a child between the ages of 14-18, assault on a peace officer, and assault with force likely to commit great bodily injury. What kind of message does this send to offenders? Under these policies these offenders could essentially commit crimes-without the threat of punishment. No responsibility, no accountability. What kind of message does that send to citizens across the state? To victims and their survivors? Furthermore, if local prosecutors know they are not going to be able to obtain a sentence that will require incarceration beyond 20 months, they will likely not press charges at all. Additionally, since there was no physical commitment to state prison, the conviction offense could not be counted as a prison prior, which is a one-year sentence enhancement tool often used by district attorneys for serious and repeat offenders. Crime Victims United of California is actively lobbying the state Legislature, urging them to throw out these incredibly dangerous proposals. However, with the significant budget woes facing the state, CVUC is concerned the Legislature may consider one or both of these proposals in an effort to address the budget crisis. Balancing the state budget must not come at the cost of public safety. Continue Reading: Get Out of Jail Free! by Ryan Sherman, CCPOA Director of Public Relations Reject Summary Parole to Protect Families - Page 2 by Assemblyman Van Tran, R-Costa Mesa The Criminal Next Door - Page 3 by Bill Leonard, Board of Equilization Member and Former State Legislator Parole Plan Sends the Wrong Message to Offenders and Victims - Page 4 by Harriet Salarno, Founder, Crime Victims United of California Governor's Parole Plan Threatens Public Safety - Page 5 by Assemblyman Doug Lamalfa, R-Redding  Print This PageBack to Volume 25, Issue 2 Back to PEACEKeeper Main Page |
