Lies Fueling Debate on CA Bail Reform:  Last year, the California Senate passed an ACLU-sponsored bill (SB10) which would have essentially eliminated money bail from the state's criminal justice system, replacing a judge's decision of whether a defendant should be released prior to trial with computer software to assess a defendant's risk of fleeing or committing new crimes.  Although the bill had Governor Brown's support, it failed to pass in the Assembly and is being reconsidered this year.  Proponents of the bill argue that having judges set the amount of bail is racist and discriminates against the poor.  They cite horror stories about poor minority defendants arrested for minor crimes languishing in jail awaiting trial for lack of money to post bail.  Prosecutor Eric Siddall, Vice President of the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys, has this piece calling out a proponent's op-ed in the Los Angeles Times for a "glaring lack of candor" when describing the case of Kenneth Humphrey.  In their Times piece, two San Francisco public defenders claimed Humphrey had languished in jail for 250 days for "stepping into his neighbor's room at a senior citizen complex" and stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne.  Siddall notes that this narrative leaves out a few important facts.  The defenders go on to claim that the SF District Attorney conceded that Humphrey posed no threat to society.  This was a lie.  The prosecutor actually said that he was "a great public safety risk."   It would be nice, particularly when considering policies which directly impact the safety of innocent citizens, if both sides were able to stick to the truth.