The Judicial overcrowding mandate forced a reduction of inmate population in California's prisons. Using that mandate as its cover, Sacramento shifted significant COR costs onto Counties/Cities, while claiming to make Counties/Cities whole via "Realignment" payments. That too was a State con job because Realignment "underfunded" County/City cost increases! By comparing county realignment dollars ($10,900 per capita) to COR avoided costs ($34,960 per capita) the underfunded scam is exposed! i.e., The difference between $34,900 and $10,900 equals $24,000 of per capita costs that COR dumped onto Counties/Cities!
That's why County/City Public Safety costs have become staggering, and virtually all County Jails were forced into inmate "early release" on a daily basis. If your County/City Public Safety costs have exploded, send a Thank You note to Governor Brown! Finally, a 29% reduction in COR's 2011/12 population should have reduced its 2014/15 budget. Surprise! Despite COR's 75,000 inmate/parolee exodus, the 2014/15 budget is HIGHER THAN PRE-EXODUS! If a cost-cutting Governor was in charge, how could that be?!
Recently in Prisons Category
...policy initiatives curbing over-federalization of criminal law, reforming mandatory minimum sentences and amending the Sentencing Guidelines have the support of the Judicial Conference, but that the Judiciary currently lacks the resources to shoulder resulting increased workload.
"Policy-makers must not create a new public safety crisis in our communities by simply transferring the risks and costs from the prisons to the caseloads of already strained probation officers and the full dockets of the courts," said Judge Irene Keeley, chair of the Judicial Conference Criminal Law Committee."
"The Conference most recently supported, with certain conditions including delayed implementation, retroactivity for the Sentencing Commission's recent amendments to the Drug Quantity Table. Implementing this policy on a retroactive basis will result in many inmates being released from prison and into the custody of probation officers, who work for the Judicial Branch. Without delayed implementation for the Judiciary to seek necessary resources and prepare for this influx of offenders into the probation system, public safety could be compromised."
Very roughly translated, what this means is that we should stand back, take a deep breath, and examine, with patience instead of haste, what the measures already in train (such as lowered present guidelines and DOJ's cutting back on mandatory minimum charges) produce. Will there be big cost savings? Or will there be, as there has been in California, significantly more crime? The Conferences's explicit warning that public safety may be compromised by moving too quickly is a particularly welcome reminder, and should weigh heavily with policy makers.
Gov. Jerry Brown's "realignment" of criminal justice procedures, aimed at reducing overcrowding in state prisons by diverting more felons into local jails and probation, has not resulted in lower rates of new criminal activity among offenders, a study by the Public Policy Institute of California concludes.
New offenses by those released from custody are known as "recidivism" and putting felons under local control was supposed to include more drug treatment and other programs to reduce their criminal activity.
However, the PPIC study concludes, "We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially."
"Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by two percentage points," the authors of the study, Magnus Lofstrom, Steven Raphael, and Ryken Grattet, continue. "At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about seven percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets--a result of counties' limited jail capacity."
The PPIC study may provide new ammunition for the critics of realignment who contend that the state is solving its prison overcrowding problem under pressure from federal judges but in doing so is putting new burdens on local governments, particularly county jails, that result in more criminal activity.
Yesterday, Dr. Paul McHugh, former chief psychiatrist for Johns Hopkins Hospital, had this op-ed in the WSJ (subscription required) questioning whether this "treatment" is appropriate for any patient:
What's changed the political equation on crime [in the last three decades]? The most important factor is the decline in the crime rate. After surging through the 1980s as the crack epidemic crested, the violent crime rate has fallen almost every year since 1993 and now stands at only about half of what it was then, according to FBI figures. (A separate Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey shows the violent-crime rate ticking back up over the past two years but still down about two-thirds from its 1993 level.) "We have an incredible opportunity for change because crime is down," says Michael S. Romano, a lecturer at Stanford University Law School.
See also this prior post.
Michelle Kosilek, born Robert Kosilek, has been in a heated legal battle to get the surgery, which she [sic] says is required to relieve the emotional stress caused by the disorder. Kosilek is currently serving a life sentence for killing spouse Cheryl Kosilek in 1990.
In 2012, a federal judge ruled that the department must give Kosilek the surgery.
In January, that decision was reaffirmed by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said it is a constitutional right to receive medically necessary treatment "even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox."
The prisons department appealed and won a rehearing before the full appeals court. Five appeals court judges heard arguments on the matter Thursday and could take months to issue a decision.
Lane's article is, for the reliably pro-defendant WaPo, a surprisingly fresh and balanced look at the issue, well worth the read.
In an oft-quoted but empty phrase, the [National Research Council] report declares the growth of incarceration in the United States "historically unprecedented and internationally unique."
The same might be said for the United States itself. This is the only nation on earth with more than 100 million people, effective, democratically accountable law enforcement and a lot of crime.
If we released all drug offenders, the incarceration rate would still be much higher than that of Europe. Ditto if we released all minorities. Nor are U.S. racial disparities unique. Canadian statistics show that, for unknown reasons, the black share of Canada's prison population is three times that of the general population -- the same as in the United States.
A Fresno man who was convicted for sodomizing two infants is now at large, and may be in Stanislaus County.
The California Department of Corrections issued a warrant for the offender, Kenneth Lawson, on April 16. He was released on GPS-monitored parole, but is believed to have cut off his GPS tracking ankle bracelet.
Back in November, the Court enjoined Ark. DoC from enforcing its policy against Holt, for the first 1/2 inch of beard, until disposition of the case.
Update: The Court subsequently amended its grant of certiorari to narrow the Question Presented to "Whether the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq., to the extent that it prohibits petitioner from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs."