ReentryConsultantOnline continues to defend the indefensible – a state-sanctioned jail break. Tomorrow the State will begin to dump thousands of prison inmates onto the streets of California, many of them WITHOUT ANY paroles supervision, thereby placing the public’s safety in peril.
In Bob Walsh’s words, “He is obviously a ‘warm and fuzzy care and treatment’ individual.” That, or he is a propagandist for the Governor and the Department of Corrections. ReentryConsultantOnline’s assertion that many of the released inmates need no supervision because they will “self correct” is absurd.
Back in the 1960s, the California adult parole division tried an interesting experiment. Three groups of parolees were established, each group having similar characteristics. Two consisted of the regular 70-man caseload. The third consisted of 35 parolees. One of the large groups required the established number of periodic field visits while the other large group received no supervision. The small group required intensive field supervision with a minimum of one visit a month for each parolee.
After one year, the results for the large group with supervision and the other group with no supervision were the same – a 40 percent recidivism rate. And what about the small group with intensive supervision? Its recidivism rate was much greater. Why? Because the parole agent conducting monthly field visits was able to detect criminal behavior more readily than the parole agent with the 70-man caseload.
In response to BarkGrowlBite and Bob Walsh’s rebuttal of his contention that the mass release of prison inmates would not jeopardize public safety, ReentryConsultantOnline wrote:
“BarkGrowlBite, It is true that it is not uncommon for the D.A. to offer a plea bargain to defendant’s but, that point in no way influence the outcome of a risk assessment in that, risk assessments are not determined by the inmate’s sentencing offense and/or criminal history only. The courts will not routinely allow the reduction of charges for defendant’s who perpetrate serious or violent felonies.
Of equal importance to note is that assessments of an inmate’s risk level (low, moderate, high) are determined by an assessment of the entire criminal history, overall risk potential, history of substance abuse, education, family background, triggers of criminal behavior and social functioning This is a nationwide practice.
For the definition of serious and Violent felonies in the state of California refer to 1192. 7 Penal Code (Serious Felonies) and 667.5 Penal Code (Violent Felonies) These penal codes will provide you with a laundry list of crimes which meet the definition of serious and violent felonies.
BarkGrowlBite I was not clear on one point regarding the low to moderate population. Research shows that low risk offenders are self-correcting and will not reap significant benefits from intensive treatments and many times will experience an increase in recidivism. The moderate risk offender does need intensive treatment for the best possibility of a reduction in recidivism. It is unfortunate that this population will be going on the Non-Revocable Parole status.
Bob Walsh - I agree that there are some flaws in the plan but; I can also tell you that California is following in the footsteps of many other states in the nation, by adopting policies supported by research. My comments were meant to correct the misinformation stated by the LAPPL.”
And here is how Bob Walsh responded to the above remarks by ReentryConsultantOnline:
“My mom once asked me if I would jump off a cliff if everybody else jumped off the cliff. I'm not a lemming.
California and many other states are making criminal justice decisions based on their wallet and available cell space and, to a lesser extent, political belief. Prisons are expensive.
Thing is, crime is expensive too. Prisons may not rehabilitate, but they do incapacitate. That's not wonderful, but it's better than a frozen carrot in the eyeball.
I am perhaps most bothered by the intellectual dishonesty of the presentation. The idea that you can predict dangerous behavior is idiotic. Anybody that tells you otherwise is delusional or a liar. When you add the fact that CDCR has a horrible track record in doing things as basic as complete file reviews (Charles Samuel and Phillip Garrido to name two of the most salient) the assertion that the people who will participate in the program will be properly screened to a meaningful criteria is false on it's face.
The intellectually honest thing to do (imagine that from a politician, or a professional bureaucrat) would be to say to the public; 'We believe we are spending too much money to keep prisoners in prison, therefore we are going to start not doing that. We will make a reasonable attempt to pick less dangerous criminals to let out of prison early. We will make a reasonable attempt to supervise some of the people we let out. Sometimes we will be successful. Sometimes we will fail. Some of these people will rob, rape and kill during the time period when they would otherwise be in prison. That's life in the real world. If you want more/better public safety, you as voters must demand that priorities be shifted. Have a nice day.'
California does not have a 70% recidivism rate because lack of good intentions. California has a 70% recidivism rate because criminal behavior is tolerated, and tolerated, and tolerated. Criminals expect that we will continue to tolerate it. In the thousands of C-files I have reviewed I have seen I believe THREE inmates who went to prison on a first offense, all were for murder. We offer multiple chances for people to get their mind right. At what point do we draw the line?
When do we pull needed funds out of 'normal' schools to pay $250,000per year for a DJJ [juvenile] ward? Why should we pay a ton of money for ‘special programs’ for violent assholes when students who want it are struggling for a basic education.
The FACT of the matter is you can not rehabilitate someone. They choose to rehabilitate themselves. They get tired of crime. They get tired of being arrested. They get tired of the risk. Then they rehabilitate themselves. They will stay off the drugs, off the booze. We can't force them. We can help them, but we can't force them.
Until they have reached that point the safest thing to do is either kill them or keep them locked up until they are ready. One option is not reasonable, the other is not cheap. Leaving felons on the street to continue to commit crimes will result in more crime. IT’S WHAT THEY DO, IT’S WHO THEY ARE."
Bob Walsh has made a compelling case against the cost-cutting early release of prison inmates. For our safety, on the other hand, ReentryConsultantOnline would have us rely on unpredictable predictions concerning the future behavior of criminals.
ReentryConsultantOnline accuses the Los Angeles Police Protective League with disseminating misinformation. My question is: Who should we believe? Someone who supports a state-sanctioned jai break or an organization that speaks for the 9,900 sworn members of the Los Angeles Police Department who try to keep that city safe? The answer is obvious and it's NOT ReentryConsultantOnline!
No comments:
Post a Comment