FEATURE: Get Out of Jail Free!

You Know What We Think of It, Now Read What Others Are Saying About the Administration's Controversial Plans to Balance the State Budget

by Ryan Sherman, CCPOA Director of Public Relations

Early releases for inmates and no supervision for parolees? These recent government proposals are stirring up a lot of questions and understandable concern all over the state, from victims groups to current and former legislators.

To clarify things, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's term "summary parole" means that inmates released from prison will not be supervised at all while on parole. The only reason it is being called summary parole is that the parolees are still technically on parole and therefore are subject to search/seizure without warrant by law enforcement.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is proposing to reduce the average daily parolee supervised population by 18,500 for the budget year 2008-09. In order to get to that average, they will have to place nearly double the actual number of parolees discussed (18,500) to around 40,000.

A lot of the same linguistic gymnastics occurs with "early release." CDCR says it wants to reduce the average daily inmate population by 22,000 for the 2008-09 budget year, which begins July 1. In order to do this, they would have to release 22,000 inmates on that day and rely on the hope that those early-released inmates do not re-offend.

Current political consultant and former state finance director Craig Brown has estimated that the actual number of early release inmates under this plan would be between 45,000 and 60,000 in order to reach the 22,000 reduction in the average daily inmate population plan.

This is important because CDCR is relying on these numbers to be reached in order for the proposed correctional officer layoffs to be possible. The CO layoffs are what will allow CDCR to save money-and that is what the real issue is all about: budget savings.

Remember, under the combined early release/summary parole plan none of these parolees will be returned to custody for violating terms of their parole unless they are arrested, charged with a new crime, and convicted of a new offense with a sentence that is longer than three and one-half years.

That is because the early release plan applies to the non-violent, non-serious , non-sex offenders with 20 months or less remaining on their sentence. So, if these guys who are released commit a new crime, if the new sentence is less than 40 months they will do 20 months, and therefore will get to bypass prison altogether.

No wonder it has provoked great debate and major concern. Read on to see what others close to these issues are saying.

Reject Summary Parole to Protect Families - Page 2

by Assemblyman Van Tran, R-Costa Mesa

Like food and shelter, being safe from crime is a basic necessity. All the opportunity, happiness and prosperity in the world is meaningless if you can't take a walk in your neighborhood or feel safe at home. Public safety has always been my top priority in Sacramento. I've strongly supported vital tough-on-crime protections like Jessica's Law, Megan's Law, and Three Strikes, to keep criminals locked up behind bars where they belong.

But under a dangerous proposal by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to create a new category of parole called summary parole, our safety could be at risk. Felons convicted of any number of serious crimes would no longer be supervised by law enforcement while they are out on parole.

An estimated 18,500 parolees who served time for such crimes as attacking public safety officers while on duty, recruiting gang members, committing auto theft, or identity thieves would go free. We would have no idea where they are or if they are living up to the conditions of their parole, such as maintaining a job and staying off drugs.

As a husband and father, I am troubled by the fact that those convicted of certain types of sex offenses and stalking, and those guilty of felony statutory rape will be allowed to slip through the cracks. Despite what some state bureaucrats may say, many are serious felons who pose a great risk to our community.

Parolees convicted of serious crimes should not get off so easy in response to the state's budget problems. They should be required to complete their parole terms under the close supervision of law enforcement, including receiving the therapy and counseling they need. This is important to give them a chance to turn their lives around.

Allowing parolees to go free without any obligation to continue treatment or live up to their parole requirements sends a conflicting message. Statistics have shown that many will return to crime if they have not been fully rehabilitated, creating a very dangerous situation.

In addition to greatly reducing parole, some Sacramento politicians propose releasing 22,000 dangerous felons-including burglars, identity thieves, and embezzlers-onto California streets in the name of necessary budget cuts. We must keep in mind that one of our top priorities is to keep our communities safe and free of any danger.

Instead of making 100 percent cuts in a vast array of duplicative or obsolete state programs, some propose throwing the prison doors open and shortening parole.

But they fail to consider this: Why has the average annual cost of housing a prisoner climbed from $32,000 to $42,000 during the four-plus years of this administration, while Florida spends $19,000, and even the federal prison system costs just $25,000?

So who do these Sacramento politicians think they are kidding? Californians have given them an entire finance department to prepare serious budget reforms, and yet we're expected to believe that preposterous threats to release thousands of dangerous felons and to nearly eliminate parole are the only solutions to the state's runaway spending.

Pork projects or new programs are no substitute for the safety of our loved ones. It's time for the Legislature to work across party lines to find more realistic ways to trim the budget. By cutting wasteful spending and getting our budget priorities straight, we can find significant savings in the budget to make summary parole unnecessary.

Making streets, schools, and workplaces safe is one of the most important functions of government. It's not about stats, budget savings, or overcrowding. It's about children, the elderly, our neighborhoods, and our schools.

The Criminal Next Door - Page 3

by Bill Leonard, Board of Equilization Member and Former State Legislator

Ever since the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced plans for the early release of more than 20,000 prisoners, I have been trying to get a handle on who these inmates might be. CDCR describes them as "non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual" offenders. What is difficult for me to accept about that definition is that for years now I have heard that we no longer imprison non-violent, non-serious criminals in California. Instead, they do jail time or are released with restrictions.

The closest I have seen to a specific explanation of who will be released is a Sacramento Bee article in February profiling a few inmates who seem to meet the criteria CDCR is citing.

CDCR tells me that these 22,000 or so criminals would be those who have less than 20 months remaining on their sentences. The offense for which they are currently incarcerated will have to meet (CDCR insists they will "exceed") the Penal Code definitions of non-violent and non-serious crimes. The crimes may also not have been sexual in nature, nor can any previous crimes have been sexual, nor can there have been any problems with sexual activity in prison.

Back in 2006, Sen. Chuck Poochigian wrote, "For every 100 felonies reported, there are 40 adult arrests, leading to 28 convictions that result in only five offenders sent to prison; 80 percent of all inmates have been convicted of felonies prior to their current commitment offense; 54 percent of all inmates have three or more prior convictions." He cited a 2005 Department of Corrections study showing that only 14.5 percent, or 23,000 male inmates at that time, were serving time for non-violent offenses, such as commercial burglary, grand theft forgery or fraud, or possession of a controlled substance. That is probably the population they are thinking about releasing now.

So most of the early releasees will have been convicted of drug or property crimes. To be considered for early release, a prisoner does not have to demonstrate that he has overcome a drug addiction. Of course, if the person is still addicted, the likelihood of his leading a crime-free life once released is very slim. Sadly, the chances of any releasee leading a crime-free life are pretty slim. Our recidivism rate is astronomical and very discouraging. It speaks to how little rehabilitation actually happens. Nor is there any proposal to make a real effort at rehabilitation, job training, or education.

Among the problems with this situation is that the early releasees are going to be on summary parole, which means they will not be actively accountable to a parole agent and cannot simply have their parole revoked for another offense. Instead, the county district attorney will have to file a whole new case and prosecute the person all over again when they commit another crime.

So, although the "early release proposal was designed based on budget issues rather than overcrowding issues," according to CDCR, the real budget impact will be shifting costs from the state to the counties. Not to mention the increased costs borne by the neighborhoods in which these drug users/sellers and property criminals are relocated.

Parole Plan Sends the Wrong Message to Offenders and Victims - Page 4

by 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.

Governor's Parole Plan Threatens Public Safety - Page 5

by Assemblyman Doug Lamalfa, R-Redding

The most important role of government is ensuring that our neighborhoods and communities are safe. That's why I am opposed to a proposal by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to change to a system of unsupervised parole for thousands of criminals. They claim their summary parole plan is necessary to deal with the state's $14.5 billion deficit.

Over the years, I've fought the efforts of liberals in Sacramento to weaken California's tough-on-crime laws, like Three Strikes, that are keeping repeat criminals behind bars and away from our families. I've also worked to bring home more tax dollars so cities and counties could hire the additional sheriff's deputies and police officers we need to patrol our streets and protect our neighborhoods.

What would summary parole mean for California? More than 18,500 convicted felons currently out on parole would be allowed to go free-without any tracking or supervision by law enforcement. We won't have any idea whether they are making progress to become productive members of the community, or if they are even adhering to the terms of their parole, including staying away from drugs or alcohol, and maintaining a job.

Right now, our community has some peace of mind that parolees will follow the terms of their parole because they are under the watchful eye of law enforcement. That would all go away under summary parole. Convicted felons out on parole won't be held accountable by their parole officers any longer, not will they be required to even check in periodically so we know their whereabouts. Many will jump at the chance to quickly slip away, and statistics show they will return to a life of crime. I am most concerned, however, about the types of serious criminals who could be free under summary parole.

Individuals who have been serving time behind bars for some very serious crimes could be eligible, including certain types of sex offenders and stalkers, and those who have committed felony statutory rape. Felons who have lead police officers on a car chase to avoid being arrested, and those who have attacked public safety personnel while conducting their duties could also be left alone to roam free. Also on the list are identity thieves, auto thieves, those with a deadly weapon who want to intimidate a crime victim or a witness and those who recruit gang members, even by force.

Do we really want convicted stalkers, sex offenders, or armed felons running loose in our county because the Legislature refuses to get its act together on the budget deficit?

Only in Sacramento would letting thousands of criminals vanish without a trace be considered a better choice than cutting wasteful spending. The proposal doesn't even save the state much money. It would only save us $14 million this year, which is only 0.14 percent of CDCR's overall budget. It would save just $102.1 million next year, which is only 0.97 percent of the Department's budget.

Fortunately, the release plan, as drafted, requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, which will allow Republicans to stop it dead in its tracks.

Enough is enough. The state Legislature must cut wasteful spending and get our budget priorities straight. California's hardworking families deserve better than the irresponsible threat of summary parole. Our most important duty is to protect the citizens we are privileged to represent, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the right thing and rejecting this proposal.

• volume 25 issue 2