"Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads" was a briefing and conference held in San Francisco last week [a report by ACLU of California can be found on line at www.acluc.org/realignment]. Not a single prosecutorial office (nor legislator's office) was listed amongst the participants. Hopefully a few snuck in and got the information, if not, too bad. Why?
.
Realignment burdens [created by the 2011 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v Plata (131 S. Ct. 1910) which found that overcrowding in California's prisons to be so severe as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment] are real in that the capacity of the state prison system, while temporarily (and only in part) relieved by the early release/transfer of 17,000, the State is looking at having to release or transfer to local holding facilities another 16,000 state prisoners, and the realignment burdens are going to be a recurring problem. Why?
.
1. There is a troubling lack of state monitoring, data collection, outcome measurements and funding incentives to help counties successfully implement realignment (code for the State saying, here's your AB 109 hush bucks and leave us alone);
.
2. A dramatic increase in spending on county jails--facilitated by billions of dollars in state funding--particularly in those counties that have historically sent more people to state prison for low-level, non-violent offenses.
.
3. A shockingly high number of people who represent no real threat to public safety being held in county jails before having their day in court, incarcerated without trial simply they cannot afford bail.
.
Some of the suggestions:
.
1. Data Collection. Mandate standardized data collection and analysis across the 58 counties in order to monitor which policies and programs are working to reduce recidivism and reliance upon incarceration, and base policy and budget decisions on those findings;
.
2. Funding Formula. Revise the state allocation formula to incentivize counties to reduce recidivism and incarceration;
.
3.Sentencing Reforms. Enact statewide front-end sentencing reforms to help counties implement realignment;
.
4.Pretrial Detention reform. Amend statewide pretrial detention laws and implement new local pretrial release policies to keep behind bars only those that truly pose a risk to public safety;
.
5. Alternatives to incarceration. Create and fund concrete plans to develop community-based alternatives to detention for both pretrial and sentenced population;
.
6.Utilize New Sentencing Options. Encourage local courts to utilize realignment's new sentencing options that authorize judges to replace all or a part of a jail sentence with community sanctions or treatment programs;
.
7. Stop Jail Expansion. Halt or significantly reduce jail expansion and construction plans, including AB 900 funding and projects;
.
8. Limit Use of Immigration Detainers. Review the impact of immigration status and immigration detainers on inmates' detention to prioritize public safety needs.
.
Blogger Bob's comments:
.
1. Realignment is a legal reality and brings with it the very real need to make policy and budgetary priority changes; we spend two and half times MORE putting and keeping people in jail than educating our youth and that does not even include funding entitlement programs like Medi-Cal--the questions have to be asked, what schools do we close, what educational services do we cut, what people do we deny medical services to and cause their death so we can continue the flow of convictions and resulting incarcerations? When the public can see the choices being forced on us by the "leave-the-system-alone folks", maybe the change pressure will be real, but for now, significant change will not happen without more formula-based legislation (the newer and better AB 109 likely to be fought over?)
.
2. Electing people in support of ANY of the suggestions, is going to be tough--WHY? Many prosecuting agencies and prison industry advocates could care less. In fact in the last election cycle, anyone in a state race that suggested we look for ways to reduce the need for jail expansion by looking into alternative sentencing approaches and re-examine prosecution policies, were met with vicious (and pricey) hit piece campaigns--so while the suggestions are noted, who would carry the message against such a massive industry armada (the prison guard unions and their PACs/Non-Affiliated Committees, the Building Industry Association, certain construction trade unions that are involved in prison building projects--formidable opponents to say the least)
.
3. Judges, who stand for re-election in California, even though they have the power to consider other
sentencing options might be reluctant to do so for fear of offending the brethren (90% plus of the appointees are former DDAs,some of which maintain close ties with those groups from whence they came), for fear of being labelled "soft-on-crime" and have to face a DDA put up to run (by the current DA) against the sitting judge and absent that, the pro-institutional bias (and that's its easier and politically safer to order straight state prison time) is a tough nut to crack.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment