California prison populations are overflowing and the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue and indicated that California must reduce its prison population to 137.5% of capacity. Governor Jerry Brown sought to address prison inmate populations through realignment. Through realignment, recidivist criminals with relatively small crimes aren’t sent back to prison, they’re sent instead to the county jail. As to how well realignment has worked? Well, that’s a mixed bag. Sure, for now it has served to reduce prison populations. What it has not done is address the issues of overcrowding directly.
If you listened to many of the prosecutors during the time of the proposed realignment, they indicated that they would simply get around the law by overcharging crimes so people would go to prison, rather than the county lockup. In response, some judges have come out and said that they would be vigilant to the issues of overcharging and wouldn’t permit it to happen. Regardless, Brown’s realignment issue seems to have had some success in reducing prison populations. One of the ways it has reduced populations is that for awhile there the process of violating a parolee was as clear as mud. It created an issue for probation & parole officers and fugitive task forces across the state because in realignment there was the underlying issue of the authority to violate and send someone back to prison.
For awhile there, Brown was playing the shell game but the shell game was called for what it was and corrected.
Now that these issues have been largely cleared up by legislation, we would expect that prison populations might go back up. Meanwhile, Governor Brown & co have gone back to court indicating that they should have the right to house more than 137.5% of capacity and be set free of federal oversight.
Apparently, no one in California government cares for Kelso’s spending habits as the prison receiver. We object to him being classified as an AOC employee.
Enter proposition 36 – Three strikes reform.
As propositions go, there is some good and not so good about prop 36. The not so good is that it does not apply evenly to all previous violent and serious crimes and as such, it was drafted as a way to allay the emotions surrounding some previously committed serious crimes. What it does do is address the recidivist that was convicted of stealing a loaf of bread and sentenced to 25 years to life by permitting these people to be re-sentenced to punishment more in alignment with the crime, being two times the normal sentence. That’s another issue we have with prop 36 is that it appears to impede on judicial discretion in that regards. If it does, we think that a judge should have the judicial discretion to sentence appropriately as circumstances might warrant to something “up to” twice the normal sentence. It also spells out that the 3rd strike must be a violent or serious felony and not just any old seemingly petty crime. Jut as some people choose to commit blue suicide, older recidivists know where they can get 3 square a day, a roof their head and free medical and know that right now, it might be one loaf of bread away.
Enacting proposition 36 would save Californian’s an estimated hundred million dollars per year according to the legislative analysts office and result in lower prison populations and that is partly why we strongly support prop 36. The other reason we support prop 36 is because it is a far better alternative than the morass of sending someone to prison for life over stealing a loaf of bread.
Related articles
- Santa Clara County DA to seek shorter Three Strikes Law sentences (mercurynews.com)
- Voters have chance to lower prison, court spending, reports say (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
- Prison-crowding relief plan behind schedule (abclocal.go.com)
- California voters to have say on taxes, state budgeting process, crime and justice (mercurynews.com)
- California’s gradual retreat from capital punishment | Sadhbh Walshe (guardian.co.uk)
- What’s ahead for California’s prison crisis? (acslaw.org)
- California corrections department listens to suggestions on how to improve rehabilitation programs (mercurynews.com)
- State realignment report: 38,000 felons under local supervision, fewer failing to report to probation (redding.com)
- California prisons may not meet standards of court order to reduce population (jurist.org)
- California prisons to stay tortuously overcrowded (rt.com)
unionman575
August 19, 2012
I object to Kelso being classified as an AOC employee too.
Nice work again JCW.
😉
courtflea
August 19, 2012
Kelso needs to be kicked out of CA government period. He is a legend in his own mind and who the heck does he know to be the temporary “guru” in state agencies. Enough!! Find someone new to take a look at state agenices. Crikey, next he will show up running the Parks Department!!
unionman575
August 19, 2012
The OBT
August 20, 2012
JCW- How about a new comment area, ” Team George” is still ruining the Judicial Branch” The names may have changed but the “insiders” and the their detrimental impact remain the same. In fact some have never left . J Huffman and the new enforcer J Hull represent the the best of the tyranny of an anti- democratic wing of government , unique to California and created by Ron George.
Wendy Darling
August 20, 2012
“Team George” is still ruining the Judicial Branch. The names may have changed but the “insiders” and the their detrimental impact remain the same.” =’s rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after hitting the iceberg, while the band plays cheerful dance music.
Long live the ACJ.
Judicial Council Watcher
August 20, 2012
How about “Team George – The Players” so at least someone besides us has a scorecard. It is a separate page that will require community input. See the menu at the top.
Lando
August 20, 2012
I have read and heard all of Hull’s comments at every Judicial Council meeting. His arrogance has no limits. He is the current Exhibit A as to why the Judicial Council needs to be democratized . How in the world did someone like this ever get placed on the Judicial Council to begin with ? When does he stand for retention? I will volunteer to be in the front lines of organizing a “No” on Hull vote at the next election which can’t come too soon .
courtflea
August 20, 2012
you know maybe we should make 1208 and democratizing the JC a proposition on the ballot at the next (after this november) state wide election. After all that is how unification of the courts was approved (SCA 4 as I recall). Once written we have a lot of signature gatherers on this blog. Once on the ballot, I’d love to see the opposition’s piece to vote “no” on the issue. How could you not pass a proposition to democratize and to put sunshine on the decision making processes of the 3rd branch of government?
The no on Hull plan sounds awesome count on me for help!!
I just have to say, I a so proud of the ACJ keeping up the heat on CJ/JC! Pound em!!
Nathaniel Woodhull
August 20, 2012
As usual, The OBT, Wendy and Lando have focused on the real problem. Despite his “retirement” it is obvious that HRH-1’s fingerprints and DNA remain on all of the activities (shenanigans) going on within the Crystal Palace.
Hull is a classic example of a Ronald George cronnie. He was appointed to the Sacramento Superior Court just along enough to let his coffee cool so he could drink it before being “elevated” to the Court of Appeals. No time spent being a trial judge, but lot’s of time spent telling trial judges how to do their j-o-b. If you worked at a formerly politically connected law firm it was easy to get appointed. A retirement job for someone in Hull’s position. Good thing too since the old firm went belly-up after he left due to “economic downturns”. (i.e. the work at the public trough was cut off.)
Since by all account the current CJ had little interaction with Hull before installing him on his current committee assignments, the obvious answer is that someone told HRH-2 that he would be a “good choice” for the assignment. That someone is obviously Ronald George.
Some people just cannot get off the stage…
JusticeCalifornia
August 20, 2012
oh look someone else who retired but really didn’t.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KbOUqLi20qwJ:iportal.sacrt.com/WebApps/SRTDBM/MeetingDocs/Archives/RT%2520Board%2520of%2520Directors%2520-%2520October%252024,%25202011%2520-%2520Item%25209.pdf+mark+sakauye+issue+paper&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiP4aZ1LzO1wR_uivtdFebXqt2T5RPjC8zIsjkk-FZtCWe3P8HXrkyiOKSvN3dk2Q360fGhklDmDw3hN0QzAk1zvJyMStoe44SqcjlDZohcEydiGzFX4kUcGV4Etxb-PApUxuab&sig=AHIEtbSvvHVJ5CCHbFcH72wSIoRg7PuNAg
I wonder if Mark is another one who is getting double pay as a “retired” “immediately rehired” public servant.
The joke is on the taxpayers supporting this double dipping system.
Lando
August 21, 2012
Woodhull’s summary is outstanding. In the world I was raised in hard work and merit were recognized. While Governors had their political differences most respected those ideals in making appointments to the Appellate courts including the elevation of Ron George who was a highly intelligent jurist. All this changed after Governor Davis left and Ron George had the desire and ability to control many appointments to the Court of Appeal and beyond including the CJP , his own successor on the Supreme Court and of course the Judicial Council. Loyalty to Ronald George and his controlling vision of the court system became the only important and relevant criteria for advancement. His henchman, J Huffman insured that only loyalists were selected and promoted to the Judicial Council. The same measure of control exists today through new E and P Chair J Miller. If any one doubts this, just review the history of Judicial Council votes which for the most part had little or no dissent except for the courageous members of the LA Superior Court since the Ronald George takeover in 1997. The end result is the mess we now see. J Bruiners lobbying against the CCMS audit and claiming CCMS was ready to be deployed. J Miller using E and P to sidetrack and bury the SEC’s hard work, and of course J Hull who plays the role of the new arrogant enforcer of the crumbling regime around him . Merit would have never allowed these individuals to play such a vital role in a court system that is now headed to the brink of financial disaster.