New study ranks California 14th most dangerous state in the country (floor, safety)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Larceny under $400 = 359,687 over $400 = 270,124. In other words, for every year after the passage of prop 47 there were more thefts with a property value of under $400, than there were for property with a value of over $400. No state that increased the threshold for felony theft had a significant increase in the rate of theft or the amount of property stolen. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...research-shows
I'm not really concerned with prop 47's impact on property crime. I'll take higher property crime in exchange for lower violent crime. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. We got higher violent crime in exchange for "less" property crime. That is not a good trade for the citizenry.
Quote:
There is no correlation between prop 47 and violent crime. Prison populations started dropping in 2011 when the Supreme Court ordered California to reduce it's prison population or face a federal takeover of the States Prisons. Violent crime is down from 2017 and actually was down every year but appeared higher due a change in the way rape was reported: Here is an analysis of the crime rate in California from the same source that you used:
The "change in the way rape was reported" is often cited for an increase in violent crimes, but that is a prevarication. Even if you move rapes and attempted rapes from the violent crime category to the nonviolent crime category, forcible rape (the pre-2014 violent crime) and other violent crimes still increased, overall. Rape and attempted rape also increased, by the way. So even if you think "certain types of rape" are "nonviolent", violent crime still increased.
(I did have to double-check this, though, so thanks for pointing that out. If violent crime had gone down after removing rapes and attempted rapes, I might be of a different opinion, especially if it had tracked national declines in crime. Unfortunately, that's not the case.)
So that's the cost to society, but lets look at the benefit to convicts. Maybe the price paid by innocent people was worth the benefit to criminals. After all, many of those released had only been convicted of relatively minor crimes. That's certainly true.
The prison population declined by a modest 5000 inmates, jail populations declined by another 10,000 (because a 2011 realignment shifted prisoners from state pens to jails), while violent crime rose by 25,000 crimes. Break those crimes down, and we see an increase of 42 homicides, 6100 rapes, 6000 forcible rapes, and 5700 robberies (per year).
I went further into the weeds and broke down the violent crimes per year. For every inmate released, over the 4-year period for which we have data since Prop 47 passed, the general public paid for it with AT LEAST 1.3 more rapes, 1.2 more forcible rapes, and 1.5 more robberies. Homicides and attempted rapes were more-or-less flat. Is letting a person out of prison worth 3 more rapes and a couple of robberies? I say no.
So, what does work? Because we do have examples of CJS reform that reduced prison populations WITHOUT increasing crime. There was a huge drop in prisoners from 2010-2012 with only a tiny temporary uptick in crime. Well, economic recovery helps. Also, the judiciary requiring a reduction in the prison population without a prop or legislative action seemed to help.
Senate bill 18 - Non-revokable parole (NRP) (2010), along with the judicial order to reduce prison population appears to have lead to a dramatic decrease in the population of inmates. About 30,000 inmates left prison between 2010 and 2012's 3 strikes law. Assembly bill 109 shifted 10,000 of those to local jails, so the drop in population was really only 20,000, but it occured with NO CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN CRIME, and--in fact--a continued downward trend in crime. Compare that to a pretty dramatic increase in violent crime from Prop 47, and we have a much clearer picture of what works and what doesn't.
What does work:
- Incremental change to remove the "gotchas" from those who have shown reform and earned NRP.
- Edicts from the courts to reduce prison overcrowding, that allow law enforcement leeway in whom they release and whom they keep incarcerated.
What doesn't work:
- Prop 47, and similar sweeping dramatic statuates which, in aggregate, remove deterrents to crime.
In my opinion, $0 bail is another prop 47.
Quote:
And if you think the bail system is fair to both the rich and the poor you really do not understand how the system works, or you really believe that only poor people who commit crimes are truly dangerous but people with money "just made a mistake"
Let me try this again. Zero bail is a temporary solution to ameliorate the problem of loading jails with inmates with the covid virus. It is only in effect for 90 days after the emergency orders for the state are lifted. It's not about being nice to inmates
I don't think the bail system is fair. I do think it protects the general public at the cost of exploiting those who are accused and cannot post bail. I think there are better ways to reform the bail system. I'm not happy about the emergency order because a man in my town, released on $0 bail, immediately continued a spree of drug dealing and statutory rapes for which he had initially been arrested. Now he's back in jail and another young teen has been raped. But that's anecdotal. We need years of data on $0 bail to see if it's a good idea. I don't want to pay the price in my perceived reduction of public safety, so I'll be voting against the proposition. I encourage others to do the same.
As for Prop 47, we now have the data. Maybe the 4-year increase in crime (while the economy was booming and the rest of the country saw a decrease in crime) is only a temporary blip that simply takes longer to digest before we return to decreasing crime rates (as 2018's data would suggest). I don't think it is, and--again--I'm not willing to have the public suffer additional crimes so we can find out. However, it's not like I have much choice. Our only choice is whether or not to vote for propositions that repeal or refine prop 47 (restoring some penalties), and I encourage everyone else to join me in doing so.
Oh, and I think CArestoration is a carpetbagger one step shy (or maybe not) of a CA-bashing troll. I can't remember anything constructive from them. CA is BY FAR the best state in the union. Most of our laws are great, protect the citizenry, environment, workers, businesses, and make me happy about raising my ethnically and culturally diverse family here.
We do most things right in CA. This is one thing we could do better.
I'm not really concerned with prop 47's impact on property crime. I'll take higher property crime in exchange for lower violent crime. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. We got higher violent crime in exchange for "less" property crime. That is not a good trade for the citizenry.
The "change in the way rape was reported" is often cited for an increase in violent crimes, but that is a prevarication. Even if you move rapes and attempted rapes from the violent crime category to the nonviolent crime category, forcible rape (the pre-2014 violent crime) and other violent crimes still increased, overall. Rape and attempted rape also increased, by the way. So even if you think "certain types of rape" are "nonviolent", violent crime still increased.
(I did have to double-check this, though, so thanks for pointing that out. If violent crime had gone down after removing rapes and attempted rapes, I might be of a different opinion, especially if it had tracked national declines in crime. Unfortunately, that's not the case.)
So that's the cost to society, but lets look at the benefit to convicts. Maybe the price paid by innocent people was worth the benefit to criminals. After all, many of those released had only been convicted of relatively minor crimes. That's certainly true.
The prison population declined by a modest 5000 inmates, jail populations declined by another 10,000 (because a 2011 realignment shifted prisoners from state pens to jails), while violent crime rose by 25,000 crimes. Break those crimes down, and we see an increase of 42 homicides, 6100 rapes, 6000 forcible rapes, and 5700 robberies (per year).
I went further into the weeds and broke down the violent crimes per year. For every inmate released, over the 4-year period for which we have data since Prop 47 passed, the general public paid for it with AT LEAST 1.3 more rapes, 1.2 more forcible rapes, and 1.5 more robberies. Homicides and attempted rapes were more-or-less flat. Is letting a person out of prison worth 3 more rapes and a couple of robberies? I say no.
So, what does work? Because we do have examples of CJS reform that reduced prison populations WITHOUT increasing crime. There was a huge drop in prisoners from 2010-2012 with only a tiny temporary uptick in crime. Well, economic recovery helps. Also, the judiciary requiring a reduction in the prison population without a prop or legislative action seemed to help.
Senate bill 18 - Non-revokable parole (NRP) (2010), along with the judicial order to reduce prison population appears to have lead to a dramatic decrease in the population of inmates. About 30,000 inmates left prison between 2010 and 2012's 3 strikes law. Assembly bill 109 shifted 10,000 of those to local jails, so the drop in population was really only 20,000, but it occured with NO CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN CRIME, and--in fact--a continued downward trend in crime. Compare that to a pretty dramatic increase in violent crime from Prop 47, and we have a much clearer picture of what works and what doesn't.
What does work:
- Incremental change to remove the "gotchas" from those who have shown reform and earned NRP.
- Edicts from the courts to reduce prison overcrowding, that allow law enforcement leeway in whom they release and whom they keep incarcerated.
What doesn't work:
- Prop 47, and similar sweeping dramatic statuates which, in aggregate, remove deterrents to crime.
In my opinion, $0 bail is another prop 47.
I don't think the bail system is fair. I do think it protects the general public at the cost of exploiting those who are accused and cannot post bail. I think there are better ways to reform the bail system. I'm not happy about the emergency order because a man in my town, released on $0 bail, immediately continued a spree of drug dealing and statutory rapes for which he had initially been arrested. Now he's back in jail and another young teen has been raped. But that's anecdotal. We need years of data on $0 bail to see if it's a good idea. I don't want to pay the price in my perceived reduction of public safety, so I'll be voting against the proposition. I encourage others to do the same.
As for Prop 47, we now have the data. Maybe the 4-year increase in crime (while the economy was booming and the rest of the country saw a decrease in crime) is only a temporary blip that simply takes longer to digest before we return to decreasing crime rates (as 2018's data would suggest). I don't think it is, and--again--I'm not willing to have the public suffer additional crimes so we can find out. However, it's not like I have much choice. Our only choice is whether or not to vote for propositions that repeal or refine prop 47 (restoring some penalties), and I encourage everyone else to join me in doing so.
I'm not really concerned with prop 47's impact on property crime. I'll take higher property crime in exchange for lower violent crime. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. We got higher violent crime in exchange for "less" property crime. That is not a good trade for the citizenry.
.
People who commit property crimes very rarely commit violent crime and what would be the impetus for prop 47 to have caused an increase in violent crime, how could property crime have been traded for violent crime? From PPIC "We find no evidence that violent crime increased as a result of Proposition 47. While California saw an uptick in the violent crime rate from 2014 to 2016, this trend appears to have preceded the reform and is due in large part to
unrelated changes in crime reporting after 2014."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
The "change in the way rape was reported" is often cited for an increase in violent crimes, but that is a prevarication. Even if you move rapes and attempted rapes from the violent crime category to the nonviolent crime category, forcible rape (the pre-2014 violent crime) and other violent crimes still increased, overall. Rape and attempted rape also increased, by the way. So even if you think "certain types of rape" are "nonviolent", violent crime still increased.
(I did have to double-check this, though, so thanks for pointing that out. If violent crime had gone down after removing rapes and attempted rapes, I might be of a different opinion, especially if it had tracked national declines in crime. Unfortunately, that's not the case.)
So that's the cost to society, but lets look at the benefit to convicts. Maybe the price paid by innocent people was worth the benefit to criminals. After all, many of those released had only been convicted of relatively minor crimes. That's certainly true.
So you are claiming that since prop 47 was passed in 2014 that caused crime to go up in 2015 and 2016? I think you are mistaking correlation with causation. Violent crime all over the US went up during those same years, how do you explain that?
Quote:
Homicides in the United States went up by more than 10 percent in 2015 over the year before, while violent crime increased by nearly 4 percent in the same period, according to new statistics released Monday by the FBI. All told, the country reported its highest estimated violent crime rate in three years, and while these numbers are far below those seen one or two decades earlier, they mark a sharp increase following two years of declines, the FBI’s summary of crime figures showed.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...2015-fbi-says/
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
Page 17 for prison populations:
[url]https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2020/01/201812_DataPoints.pdf
Page 17? that is Table 1.16.1: In Custody Population by California Static Risk Assessment, I doubt if that's what you wanted me to look at. If you are looking for the state prison population by year, In 2006 it was 173,643. At the end of 2018 it was 127,709 but about 15,000 of that number were serving time in fire camps or private facilities leased by the state. SCOTUS ordered the state not to exceed 116,000 inmates and it looks like they have been meeting that goal every year. Currently there are 111,000 in prisons, about 3,000 in fire camp and another 4,000 in contract beds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
And jail data: https://www.ppic.org/publication/cal...-county-jails/
The prison population declined by a modest 5000 inmates, jail populations declined by another 10,000 (because a 2011 realignment shifted prisoners from state pens to jails), while violent crime rose by 25,000 crimes. Break those crimes down, and we see an increase of 42 homicides, 6100 rapes, 6000 forcible rapes, and 5700 robberies (per year).
I went further into the weeds and broke down the violent crimes per year. For every inmate released, over the 4-year period for which we have data since Prop 47 passed, the general public paid for it with AT LEAST 1.3 more rapes, 1.2 more forcible rapes, and 1.5 more robberies. Homicides and attempted rapes were more-or-less flat. Is letting a person out of prison worth 3 more rapes and a couple of robberies? I say no.
You lost me, you really did go in the weeds there. Prisoners released for what reason? 99% of inmates are released at some point...??? Are you talking about having non violent inmates serve their sentence in County jail? If so, they don't let them out at night to go commit crimes. Somehow it seem that you are trying to compare reported crimes with the number of convicted inmates in California prisons and that makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
So, what does work? Because we do have examples of CJS reform that reduced prison populations WITHOUT increasing crime. There was a huge drop in prisoners from 2010-2012 with only a tiny temporary uptick in crime. Well, economic recovery helps. Also, the judiciary requiring a reduction in the prison population without a prop or legislative action seemed to help.
Senate bill 18 - Non-revokable parole (NRP) (2010), along with the judicial order to reduce prison population appears to have lead to a dramatic decrease in the population of inmates. About 30,000 inmates left prison between 2010 and 2012's 3 strikes law. Assembly bill 109 shifted 10,000 of those to local jails, so the drop in population was really only 20,000, but it occured with NO CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN CRIME, and--in fact--a continued downward trend in crime. Compare that to a pretty dramatic increase in violent crime from Prop 47, and we have a much clearer picture of what works and what doesn't.
What does work:
- Incremental change to remove the "gotchas" from those who have shown reform and earned NRP.
- Edicts from the courts to reduce prison overcrowding, that allow law enforcement leeway in whom they release and whom they keep incarcerated.
What doesn't work:
- Prop 47, and similar sweeping dramatic statuates which, in aggregate, remove deterrents to crime.
In my opinion, $0 bail is another prop 47.
NRP was a total failure, it wasn't earned at all, it was granted to people discharged from prison who had no violent or serious priors, it was discontinued a year or two after it was implemented and replaced with local parole supervision which was part of AB109. The "edicts from the court to reduce the prison population" are exactly WHY AB109, Prop 47 and Prop 57 were enacted - I thought most people knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
I don't think the bail system is fair. I do think it protects the general public at the cost of exploiting those who are accused and cannot post bail. I think there are better ways to reform the bail system. I'm not happy about the emergency order because a man in my town, released on $0 bail, immediately continued a spree of drug dealing and statutory rapes for which he had initially been arrested. Now he's back in jail and another young teen has been raped. But that's anecdotal. We need years of data on $0 bail to see if it's a good idea. I don't want to pay the price in my perceived reduction of public safety, so I'll be voting against the proposition. I encourage others to do the same.
Zero bail is a temporary measure to keep the jails from turning into petri dishes for Covid-19. And whether you like it or not a scumbag who harms a child is still a scumbag whether he's a millionaire or he cleans toilets for $12 an hour but our current bail system lets the rich pedophile walk out of the jail the same day he's arrested but keeps the guy who has to work for a living locked up for a year or two just waiting for his case to to go trial -and remember since they are pending trial they still legally have a presumption of innnocene but it doesn't mean much if you can't post bai. I'm sorry, but in my opinion that is unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
As for Prop 47, we now have the data. Maybe the 4-year increase in crime (while the economy was booming and the rest of the country saw a decrease in crime) is only a temporary blip that simply takes longer to digest before we return to decreasing crime rates (as 2018's data would suggest). I don't think it is, and--again--I'm not willing to have the public suffer additional crimes so we can find out. However, it's not like I have much choice. Our only choice is whether or not to vote for propositions that repeal or refine prop 47 (restoring some penalties), and I encourage everyone else to join me in doing so.
People who commit crimes don't consider the penalty, if they did then no one every would have stolen anything in California with a value of over $450 for the 30 or so years when that was the felony threshold - did you think about that? People who break the law usually do so with no thought because they lack the ability to evaluate cause and effect, or they think that they will never get caught. Punishment is not a deterrent geezus I wish it was because if it were then death row should be empty right? Criminologists agree that the following elements are important in deterring a criminal. 1) Certainty - which means there are enough cops or other deterrents around that the offender thinks there's a good chance he will be caught. and 2) Celerity which means the punishment occurs shortly after the crime is committed. That is one of the reason that Probation officers now can lock a probationer up for 10 days for a probation violation without a hearing or trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432
Oh, and I think CArestoration is a carpetbagger one step shy (or maybe not) of a CA-bashing troll. I can't remember anything constructive from them.
What we have is a carceral state, we have been led to believe after two decades of propaganda from the California Prison Guards union that the more people we lock up and the longer we lock them up for the safer we will be. Do you realize that until CCPOA got spanked by Jerry Brown and told to butt out of California politics they were running ads about "victims rights" with a fake victims right group founded by one of the Prison Guard union execs and his squeeze who claimed to be a crime victim.
We should only lock people up who present a danger to the public. You send a 19 year old car thief to prison and 2 years later he comes out doing carjacking and drive by shootings because the ONLY way to survive prison is to "ride in a'car" (join a gang) and that gang affiliation does not go away when they parole, they are obligated to do the gang's bidding for life. That 19 year old should have been put on an ankle monitor and ordered to pay back the victim for his/her loss
Lmfao. CR, you would be well advised to hold your congratulatory responses each time until you read 2sleepy’s rebuttals. Because she definitely knows what she’s talking about. Just a tip to consider
Damn this is absolute slaughter. Good job.
Economic opportunities, that's probably true.
Why didn't you quote his entire remark?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wac_432 View Post
Oh, and I think CArestoration is a carpetbagger one step shy (or maybe not) of a CA-bashing troll. I can't remember anything constructive from them.
And as far as what I wrote being a "slaughter" nope, it's not. What I provided is factual and well documented, so please just run along..
We should only lock people up who present a danger to the public. You send a 19 year old car thief to prison and 2 years later he comes out doing carjacking and drive by shootings because the ONLY way to survive prison is to "ride in a'car" (join a gang) and that gang affiliation does not go away when they parole, they are obligated to do the gang's bidding for life. That 19 year old should have been put on an ankle monitor and ordered to pay back the victim for his/her loss
Funny, I almost mentioned ankle monitors over jail/prison/bail at the end of my post, then I figured I'd typed enough. Prop 47 was supposed to include proactive measures to prevent recidivism. I'm under the impression that they were never implemented, or are not working. Thoughts?
Everything you've written is food for thought. I'm going to go verify that national crime rates increased as CA crime rates increased.
Funny, I almost mentioned ankle monitors over jail/prison/bail at the end of my post, then I figured I'd typed enough. Prop 47 was supposed to include proactive measures to prevent recidivism. I'm under the impression that they were never implemented, or are not working. Thoughts?
Everything you've written is food for thought. I'm going to go verify that national crime rates increased as CA crime rates increased.
For what it’s worth wac, I think you are doing a good service delving into these points as you have. Your thorough rummaging around and considerations are providing for detailed analytical responses ... this is the kind of exchange that offers service to readers. So, even though I read sleepy’s replies as expert, thanks to both of you.
Funny, I almost mentioned ankle monitors over jail/prison/bail at the end of my post, then I figured I'd typed enough. Prop 47 was supposed to include proactive measures to prevent recidivism. I'm under the impression that they were never implemented, or are not working. Thoughts?
Everything you've written is food for thought. I'm going to go verify that national crime rates increased as CA crime rates increased.
Thank you for being open minded enough to do consider doing more research on the subject. Not many people are willing (or able) to hear an opinion that differs from their own. I don't know about proactive measures ever being part of prop 47 but Yolo County usually requires 3 years of supervised probation and drug treatment for Prop 47 defendants found guilty of a drug crime, the option is to serve 240 days in jail. I don't know of any other Counties doing anything similar and I can't pass judgement on it because I can't find any data on whether it reduced recidivism or if participants even finished the program. But it does prove that Counties can still hand out some pretty serious sanctions for prop 47 offenses - if they want to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
