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.
Some quote below from a good article about the rise in crime in Orange County,CA
Criminals are basically laughing at the police these days . Sick!
Many Orange County police officials blame the surge on a state law they say makes it difficult to keep drug addicts and other low-level offenders locked up, leaving them on the streets to repeat the same crimes and steal to feed their addictions.
We used to put someone in jail for methamphetamines and they’d be in jail for a while,” said Garden Grove Police spokesman Lt. Bob Bogue. “Now it’s just a citation. It’s not uncommon to arrest the same guy twice in a single day. It’s almost like criminals are laughing in our face.”
From your source: "Bogue said Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies who run the jail system have advised police not to book misdemeanor offenders into the county lockup because it’s not worth an officer’s time".
And that is a huge part of the problem. Before prop 47 a good number of offenders were booked for misdemeanors after it was passed some law enforcement agencies have decided not to book them but to write them tickets, or even worse to not bother prosecuting the crimes. Of course criminals start to think it's a big joke when they break the law and no one does anything, who wouldn't?
The Orange County Sheriff has to blame someone for the crime increase or the citizens would probably launch a recall. Here is some data from 2015 crime statistics. I will compare Solano County which has maintained a policy of booking and setting bail for nearly every arrested person and Orange County which has foolishly decided that it's not worth their time to arrest or prosecute people for misdemeanor offenses.
Now you tell me what the difference is..both agencies were impacted by AB109 and Prop 47. Maybe it's time for the Orange County Sheriff to resign or at least quit playing the blame game. Whether their crime increase is because of lousy policing or failure to book prop 47 offenders is difficult to say but they need to step up their game or the public needs to put some new people in charge.
The above from 2sleepy is false and wrong. I don't think you are well researched enough on this topic to make such false claims, please do actual research instead of making up stuff to fit an agenda. There have been hundreds of early releases due to AB109 and Prop 47. See the problem is that there were no early releases under AB109 or Prop 47 so this is really nonsense. The above from 2sleepy is false and wrong. I don't think you are well researched enough on this topic to make such false claims, please do actual research instead of making up stuff to fit an agenda. There have been hundreds of early releases due to AB109 and Prop 47.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
Not ONLY that, but there has been a decrease numbering in the thousands of non-prosecutions due to AB109 and Prop 47.
Each county District Attorney's office decides which cases to prosecute, unfortunately a number of counties have decided not to prosecute prop 47 offenses, please see post #21 for a comparison in the crime rate of two counties, Orange County which does not prosecute or book offenders arrested for misdemeanors and Solano County that both books and prosecutes for prop 47 crimes. In every county that has decided to opt out of prosecuting or booking misdemeanor offenses their property crime has dramatically increased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
According to PPIC: Quote:
we [saw] a decline in the number of convictions for these individuals. Less amount of convictions of people who would have normally went to prison.
umm...that's because a number of felonies were reclassified as misdemeanors, that was the goal of prop 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
we find the share of Prop 47 defendants receiving pretrial releases increased.
That is due to individual policies of the courts and law enforcement agencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
During trial, DAs are now more willing to cut deals to let criminals back onto the street.
That is NOT from the PPP study, please cite a source for it. 94% of State and 97% of Federal cases are resolved through plea bargains, nothing has changed regarding that
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
we see a decline in the average length of stay for sentenced offenders, which resulted in less custody time. Early releases!!!
NO, a shorter jail/prison term =/= an early release. The purpose of prop 47 was to reduce the number of offenders sent to prison for minor crimes, that was necessary in order to comply with the Supreme Court order to reduce the prison population. There has never been any evidence that long periods of incarceration for non violent crimes is more effective than a shorter incarceration, but some incarceration is better than none which apparently eludes the idiots running the Orange and Los Angeles County law enforcement agencies and court systems. Prop 47 is working as intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration
Please stop spreading false information 2Sleepy.
I haven't, it's just that you don't know enough about this subject to understand what the information in the PPP report, hopefully I have helped you. Your biggest mistake was in finding a study that was only discussing the impact of prop 47 on the jail population, it did not pass judgement on the effectiveness of the program or imply that shorter jail terms pose a threat to public safety.
Now that we are done with that, let's look at what really happened re: "early releases"
Prop 47 has reduced early releases: Before prop 47 serious offenders being held in the LA County Jail were serving about 30-40% of their sentence with all other sentenced inmates serving 10%. Post prop 47 all inmates are serving 100% of their sentence Refer to chart on page 14 of the PPP study.
That is NOT from the PPP study, please cite a source for it.
PPIC, not PPP. What the heck is PPP?
It's LITERALLY in the link I posted. I copied that statement from the PPIC study.
Quote:
That is due to individual policies of the courts and law enforcement agencies.
... DUE to the changes caused by AB109 and Prop 47.
Quote:
umm...that's because a number of felonies were reclassified as misdemeanors, that was the goal of prop 47
YES! Exactly. Because they changed the definition of a "felony" nonchalantly, more criminals who were felons before Prop 47 got released into the general public. Now you're getting it.
Quote:
NO, a shorter jail/prison term =/= an early release.
That's literally the definition of an early release.
You're arguing semantics because you know I just proved your entire false narrative wrong. You claimed no one got released earlier than they would have before Prop 47, and I just proved that wrong and false. It's easy to debate when you have actual facts.
Exactly! Prop 47 and AB 109 "reduced prison populations" by releasing a bunch of prisoners onto public streets instead of into programs that would actually help them. What an outrage.
That's simply not true. AB109 did not involve any "early releases". It shifted the function of parole supervision for most released felons from the State to the arresting County. AB109 actually provided money for programs and job training to Counties, something that was unavailable before it's passage. The other thing that AB109 did was require some low level offenders who received a state prison sentence to serve their time in county jails. Most impacted inmates really hated that because there are no jobs and few voc training programs in county jails.
Prop 47 changed the status of certain crimes making them misdemeanors rather than felonies. It also increased the threshold for felony theft from $400 to $950.
Both were passed in order to allow California to avoid mass releases of dangerous felons from it's prisons.
You can't keep every offender locked up forever, not to mention it costs the state around $67,000 a year for each prison inmate- so, at some point you try to make rational decisions about who can be kept out of prison without posing a significant risk to the pubic. Texas has been doing pretty much the same thing but you rarely hear the hair on fire rants about their criminal justice reforms .https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.f442caf3f852
From your source: "Bogue said Orange County Sheriff’s Department deputies who run the jail system have advised police not to book misdemeanor offenders into the county lockup because it’s not worth an officer’s time".
And that is a huge part of the problem. Before prop 47 a good number of offenders were booked for misdemeanors after it was passed some law enforcement agencies have decided not to book them but to write them tickets, or even worse to not bother prosecuting the crimes. Of course criminals start to think it's a big joke when they break the law and no one does anything, who wouldn't?
The Orange County Sheriff has to blame someone for the crime increase or the citizens would probably launch a recall. Here is some data from 2015 crime statistics. I will compare Solano County which has maintained a policy of booking and setting bail for nearly every arrested person and Orange County which has foolishly decided that it's not worth their time to arrest or prosecute people for misdemeanor offenses.
Solano County is one of the least populated county in the Bay Area, only 400,000 people live in Solano County (less than the population of Oakland), and the crime rate was already high, so a 3 percent difference is statistically insignificant. So cherry picking does nothing for you here.
Let's take a look at San Francisco with double the population, and where policies were loosened, and more individuals were released because of Prop 47 and AB109.
You can't keep every offender locked up forever, not to mention it costs the state around $67,000 a year for each prison inmate- so, at some point you try to make rational decisions about who can be kept out of prison without posing a significant risk to the pubic.
Your argument is totally false and wrong for the following reasons:
According to the National Institute of Health and Vera Institute of Justice, the TOTAL aggregated cost to society for crime far outweighs the cost of incarcerating criminals per year.
Total Cost of incarceration U.S annually according to Vera Institute: $74 billion
Total net effect of crime in the U.S according to NIH (asset loss, justice pursuit cost, emotional loss $179 billion
Now which number is higher? I'm sure you can figure this one out.
* (I will admit that the corrections system does have leakage, and do not support the prison unions, but the cost are still yet to eclipse the effects of crime in society based on pure dollar amounts)
Also "rational decision" on who won't be a danger to society obviously didn't help Officer Boyer. I'm sure you'll be the first person to explain your logic to his family who no longer has a father, husband, and brother.
Solano County is one of the least populated county in the Bay Area, only 400,000 people live in Solano County (less than the population of Oakland), and the crime rate was already high, so a 3 percent difference is statistically insignificant. So cherry picking does nothing for you here.
Let's take a look at San Francisco with double the population, and where policies were loosened, and more individuals were released because of Prop 47 and AB109.
San Francisco 2014-2015:
That could be because San Francisco like LA and Orange County decided to write "tickets" for misdemeanor offenses. Again, more individuals were not released due to prop 47 or AB109 neither have anything to do with early releases.
I fail to find any logic behind your claim that a percentage increase or decrease in crime means more or less in a smaller county than it does in a larger one. And in spite of your claims about Solano County, Vallejo and to a lesser degree Fairfield have had stubbornly high rates of crime for many years, so a decrease in crime is significant.
Prop 47 only affects property crimes and drug possession. The penalties for violent crimes were not impacted so there is no rationale for blaming an increase in violent crime on prop 47.
Again, more individuals were not released due to prop 47 or AB109 neither have anything to do with early releases.
You keep repeating this lie/semantic argument, but it's simply showing how weak your argument is.
PPIC has confirmed in its study that thousands of people were either not prosecuted since AB109 and Prop 47 tied their hands, or received lighter sentencing because of AB109/Prop 47.
If you think I'm wrong, answer this simple question:
Did AB109/Prop 47 allow MORE prisoners to be released into the public earlier than they would have pre-AB109/Prop 47? Will Prop 57 do the same?
That could be because San Francisco like LA and Orange County decided to write "tickets" for misdemeanor offenses.
How about it's because people who shouldn't be on the streets in the first place are simply committing crimes?
Why do you have to obfuscate your own logic to the point that your are missing the forest for the tree?
Seriously, you're literally blaming the largest law enforcement jurisdictions in the state for not doing MORE to curb crime from people who YOU ARE DEFENDING for lighter sentencing guidelines. You're literally arguing against yourself from a logical standpoint. It's fascinating.
Your argument is totally false and wrong for the following reasons:
According to the National Institute of Health and Vera Institute of Justice, the TOTAL aggregated cost to society for crime far outweighs the cost of incarcerating criminals per year
umm yeah except for one thing, your numbers don't work.
Quote:
"Crime generates substantial costs to society at individual, community, and national levels. In the United States, more than 23 million criminal offenses were committed in 2007, resulting in approximately $15 billion in economic losses to the victims and $179 billion in government expenditures on police protection, judicial and legal activities, and corrections (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004a, 2007a, 2008). Programs that directly or indirectly prevent crime can therefore generate substantial economic benefits by reducing crime-related costs incurred by victims, communities, and the criminal justice system" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/
The cost of incarceration from your Vera source is 39 billion and from your NIH source the economic loss from crime is 15 billion, so on a purely rational economic basis we would be 24 billion dollars ahead if we quit putting people in prison, or from your NIH source, 114 billion ahead if we quit arresting, prosecuting and trying criminals which costs 179 billion.
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.
See the problem is that there were no early releases under AB109 or Prop 47 so this is really nonsense. The above from 2sleepy is false and wrong. I don't think you are well researched enough on this topic to make such false claims, please do actual research instead of making up stuff to fit an agenda. There have been hundreds of early releases due to AB109 and Prop 47.
