Passage of Proposition 47

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

I don't claim anything; that's from political columnist George Skelton.



Doesn't sound as if you read his column...

Attribute your quotes - or at least put them in quotation marks as you did with the rest of your post and we don't have to worry about whether I read it So I'm assuming you are not offering an opinion, just quoting Schubert?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So I'm assuming you are not offering an opinion, just quoting Schubert?

Right; that exact line is in the article by Skelton.

I do think that he makes a good point about how the CA ballot initiative process needs better legislative scrutiny.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Right; that exact line is in the article by Skelton.

I do think that he makes a good point about how the CA ballot initiative process needs better legislative scrutiny.

I think most people would agree with that, and this addresses some of the issues: Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. - Newsroom

[2sleepy]

Here's a very good article on the California criminal justice system Prison Reform, Proposition 47 and the California Shell Game

[DriveNotCommute]

Here's another angle about Prop 47, a quick look after its first month:
Prop. 47's effect on jail time, drug rehabilitation is mixed so far [latimes.com]

The current short term observation is that property crime in LA County went up compared to the previous year but the article notes it is too soon to know if it represents a trend. This article also touches on the question of how much money will be put into the drug and mental health programs and if it will be enough.

I think that ideally, if all of those people had access to decent paying jobs and their own property to protect they might be less inclined to break the law. In the absence of an economy that accommodates all of them, we simply won't have much of a choice but to keep experimenting with incarceration and personal defense laws and policy.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Here's another angle about Prop 47, a quick look after its first month:
Prop. 47's effect on jail time, drug rehabilitation is mixed so far [latimes.com]

The current short term observation is that property crime in LA County went up compared to the previous year but the article notes it is too soon to know if it represents a trend. This article also touches on the question of how much money will be put into the drug and mental health programs and if it will be enough.

I think that ideally, if all of those people had access to decent paying jobs and their own property to protect they might be less inclined to break the law. In the absence of an economy that accommodates all of them, we simply won't have much of a choice but to keep experimenting with incarceration and personal defense laws and policy.

I think you are correct, but critical to the discussion is the larger question of: do longer/tougher penalties reduce recidivism, reduce the crime rate or serve as a deterrent? From everything I have seen and read the answer is that they have virtually no effect on any of those. We can't just look the other way when someone commits a crime, but we can make decisions about what our return will be for the $66,000 a year that it costs to keep a person in prison. Maybe we should reserve prison for the people who are truly dangerous and find other sanctions for offenders who commit non-violent crimes.

When they passed 3 strikes, one of the most draconian sentencing schemes in the nation, the advocates lauded it as the key to reducing the crime rate, claiming offenders would 'think twice' before breaking the law. Nonsense, offenders typically don't think they will get caught and the few who do consider getting caught as a possibility don't analyze the crime vs the possible punishment beforehand.

Jobs and housing are sorely lacking for ex-offenders. Most cities have a program known as "crime-free multi-housing" which is a compact between landlords and local police agencies prohibiting apartment rental to ex-offenders. Background checks are now performed by most employers and even temp agencies. If we can't get past the idea that when people have served their time they deserve a chance, then we are going to be stuck with a huge homeless, jobless population of ex-cons. The one good thing that prop 47 does is reduces some crimes to misdemeanors which generally are not considered in apartment rental or job background checks.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I think you are correct, but critical to the discussion is the larger question of: do longer/tougher penalties reduce recidivism, reduce the crime rate or serve as a deterrent? From everything I have seen and read the answer is that they have virtually no effect on any of those. We can't just look the other way when someone commits a crime, but we can make decisions about what our return will be for the $66,000 a year that it costs to keep a person in prison. Maybe we should reserve prison for the people who are truly dangerous and find other sanctions for offenders who commit non-violent crimes.

When they passed 3 strikes, one of the most draconian sentencing schemes in the nation, the advocates lauded it as the key to reducing the crime rate, claiming offenders would 'think twice' before breaking the law. Nonsense, offenders typically don't think they will get caught and the few who do consider getting caught as a possibility don't analyze the crime vs the possible punishment beforehand.

Jobs and housing are sorely lacking for ex-offenders. Most cities have a program known as "crime-free multi-housing" which is a compact between landlords and local police agencies prohibiting apartment rental to ex-offenders. Background checks are now performed by most employers and even temp agencies. If we can't get past the idea that when people have served their time they deserve a chance, then we are going to be stuck with a huge homeless, jobless population of ex-cons. The one good thing that prop 47 does is reduces some crimes to misdemeanors which generally are not considered in apartment rental or job background checks.

Yes I also think 3 Strikes turned out very poorly. Without more detailed knowledge though, I have to suspect that it must have at least prevented or delayed some repeated crimes, which would be better than no policy at all. I do agree that regardless of the details, the program as a whole didn't work well and saddled us with higher prison costs.

Recidivism is a great point to consider, I agree that deterrents won't work with many people. Certainly we should find better sanctions, treatment and training instead that actually works but I think there's legitimate fear that California will end up underfunding those programs instead. It is important to have something in place because doing nothing is equivalent to sanctioning crime. Doing nothing and then preventing citizens from defending their own property makes it doubly equivalent to sanctioning crime.

I see your point about acceptance of ex-cons and recidivism: As long as it remains high the majority of society will always view released convicts with suspicion. Which adds to their problems trying to re-integrate. It is a self reinforcing loop that needs to be broken and is one of those things were a strong economy would have made things easier.