Proposition 47, which reduced many ‘non-violent’ felonies to misdemeanors, and Gov. Brown’s prison realignment are turning California into a ‘crime sanctuary’
byRichard Krupp, PhD
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
August 18, 2015
In the Editorial Soapbox section of the Sacramento Bee, I recently read a piece written by Susan Burton (founder and executive director of A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project in Los Angeles) regarding Prop 47.
Though the Bee ran a pro-Prop 47 article, an opposing view was, of course, not included.
I don’t know Susan Burton or her work, other than information I gleaned from her website and Annual Reports.
I believe the following ideas are representative of the “crime sanctuary” movement in California. I do have some comments and questions that will follow some excerpts from the article.
If Prop. 47 stalls, women of color will be hurt most
Many responsible for putting Proposition 47 into effect remain hostile to the measure, while some are trying to rig it for failure. In early July, Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck brazenly linked the proposition to a spike in crime. He offered no data to back up his assertions, nor any rationale.
By reducing 40,000 felony cases to misdemeanors, the measure could save California hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Reductions in the prison population are projected to generate between $750 million and $1.25 billion in savings over the next five years alone. In a state that spends $62,396 per prisoner each year, but only $9,200 per K-12 student, those savings could be spent on improving school programs and dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline.
If Proposition 47 stalls, women of color will be hit hardest. California is the world’s No. 1 jailer of women, who are three times more likely than men to be in prison for low-level, nonviolent offenses. With racial bias playing a significant role in sentencing, the numbers are even higher for black and brown women.
The homeless, disabled and mentally ill are warehoused in jails when they should be getting treatment and services. And with formerly incarcerated women less likely than men to secure a job, public benefits or stable housing upon release, the consequences are far-reaching for children and communities.
Proposition 47 will help to reverse that trend, but not if it is sabotaged by those in charge of carrying out its mandate. Public officials must not be allowed to rig the measure to fail in the same way our justice system is rigged to deny basic protections to the most vulnerable Americans.
We need a new movement to uphold and implement Proposition 47 – and to hold accountable every judge, prosecutor, attorney, jail administrator and probation officer responsible for putting it into practice. (cited from http://tinyurl.com/nr4gnvl.)
Here are my responses to the numbered paragraphs above:
It is difficult to establish a causal relationship between crime increases and the changes associated with Prop 47 as well as Public Safety Realignment. However, the increase in crime is real and at least has face validity.
Placing criminals in the community would make an increase in crime a reasonable conclusion. It is doubtful that placing more criminals in the community would reduce crime.
Any cost savings associated with releasing or keeping criminals out of prison would have to be weighed against the costs associated with more crime and victims in the community. I know of no “school to prison pipeline.” Even if there were a “pipeline,” there is no evidence that school spending would divert the connection to prison.
There is no legitimate evidence that “racial bias plays a significant role in sentencing.” There may be higher proportions of certain classifications of people in prison, but that does not mean there is any kind of bias operating.
There is no law or theory that indicates crime, sentencing, prison behavior, etc., must be or should be in proportion to any standards other than the laws that apply to everyone.
There is no evidence that the “homeless, disabled, and mentally ill are warehoused in prisons.” These groups end up in prison if they commit serious crimes, not because of the group status you have placed them in.
There is no evidence that “public officials” are rigging Prop 47 to fail. The forces working against Prop 47 were brought to bear by the criminals committing more crimes. These criminals are not vulnerable members of society; the victims of their crimes become “vulnerable” as a result of being targeted.
I think the proposed movement should hold accountable all of the officials responsible for selling the mislabeled “Public Safety” Realignment and Prop 47 mess.
Ms Burton and others in the “crime sanctuary” movement in California may have good intentions, but they are misguided. Catch phrases and smoke-and-mirrors games will run their course.
The criminals soak it all in. They love having advocates who pump out excuses for their bad behavior and malleable sanctions imposed by courts.
The criminals can continue taking advantage of the misguided and hurt the vulnerable. They don’t fear our weakened criminal justice system.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think I’ve come up with the perfect solution to end crime victimization. Instead of prisons, or a Trump border wall, surround every community with a wall or security fence, patrolled by police to keep criminals out. All criminals would be forced to fend for themselves outside the secured communities. Whenever one of the community members commits a crime, he/she will be banished to the outside. In the dog-eat-dog world, the criminal population would be significantly reduced. If a community member wanted to travel, he would be issued an AK-47 with a loaded 50-round drum magazine to protect him and his family from criminals while outside a protected community.
The cost for building secure communities would be offset by the savings of maintaining prisons and prison inmates.
I’ve contacted Donald Trump with my idea and he said, “Why didn’t I think of that.”
No comments:
Post a Comment