New study ranks California 14th most dangerous state in the country (Brea: lease, gated)

[happly retired]

i would rather have criminals locked up unlike Calif where they play catch and release

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by happly retired

i would rather have criminals locked up unlike Calif where they play catch and release

Thanks for the detailed report filled with references to support your position.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

if we lock up enough people we won't have to worry about crime, huh?

Technically, yes.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

In terms of overall crime trends, crime rates in California are currently no higher than they were in 2010 prior to both prop 47 and AB109
I have never in my life seen any California reporting metric that goes up in $50 increments what in the world are you talking about? Theft of property with a value of under $950 is charged as a misdemeanor with a potential penalty in 12 months in jail and 3 years probation- hardly a slap on the wrist. Property with a value of under $50 can be charged as an infraction, is that what you're talking about?

Here's the CA.gov data site: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/explo...mes-clearances
It's actually:
Under 50 (decreased)
50-200 (decreased)
200-400 (decreased)
Over 400 (increased)

There has been no set back, crime is down or remains the same, and you can't legitimately claim that it's for lack of reporting or whatever else you imagine the cause is because the numbers speak for themselves

The numbers do speak for themselves, and show that Prop 47 failed to make CA safer. Quite the opposite. It's very clear that violent crime is up. It's also clear that the turnaround was 2014. The only thing that changed in 2014 is that prison populations started to decline due to Prop 47 (despite an increasing overall population). Prison population is going to go up as you get more people in the state. Forcing it down by lowering the bar is going to result in more crimes. In this case, violent crime.

High-value property crimes were down 2012 to 2014 and then increased every year since. Mid-value property crimes are down after a small bump after 2014. "Under $50" property crimes are down. I admit that it is conjecture that all catagories of "under $400" property crimes are down because people gave up reporting them. HOWEVER, that conjecture is supported by a bump in all property crimes in 2015 (before people realized the CJS was ignoring low value crimes) followed by a decline as people gave up making reports once they realized realized the CJS was not going to pursue/prosecute low-value crimes.

Except in your opening statement I don't think you discussed "zero bail" again. I am guessing you are talking about the judicial council temporarily setting bail at zero for inmates with non-serious, non-violent offenses, right? The reason for that is to give the jails some breathing room so that they can isolate inmates with covid rather than leave them in the general population so that they can infect more inmates and more staff. I'm not sure what your answer to that problem would be, but I think zero bail during this pandemic is appropriate.

I don't have data on $0 bail yet because it is brand new.

But since we are talking about bail, I have a question for you. What makes it ok to keep someone in jail because they don't have several thousands of dollars to post bail? Is the millionaire charged with rape less dangerous than a guy making $15 an hour who was arrested for the same crime?

It's simple, but you're not going to like the answer. The state can hold the financial assets, of those that have them, hostage to ensure their good behavior. The millionaire who posts $1M bail will lose his financial resources if he reoffends or skips town upon bailed release. The vagrant without a penny to his name has zero incentive not to reoffend or show up to his hearing upon release.

Sure, it's unfair that the rich guy can bail himself out, but no more unfair than the fact he's rich in the first place.

The CJS is supposed to protect the citizenry from offenders as fairly as possible. The order of operations should be:
1. Protect the citizenry
2. Be fair to the accused.

We've reversed the order with $0 bail. Now its: "Be fair to the accused", with protection of the citizenry as an afterthought.

Here's a graph of the relevant data:

[happly retired]

you are welcome

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Here's the CA.gov data site: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/explo...mes-clearances
It's actually:
Under 50 (decreased)
50-200 (decreased)
200-400 (decreased)
Over 400 (increased)

The numbers do speak for themselves, and show that Prop 47 failed to make CA safer. Quite the opposite. It's very clear that violent crime is up. It's also clear that the turnaround was 2014. The only thing that changed in 2014 is that prison populations started to decline due to Prop 47 (despite an increasing overall population). Prison population is going to go up as you get more people in the state. Forcing it down by lowering the bar is going to result in more crimes. In this case, violent crime.

High-value property crimes were down 2012 to 2014 and then increased every year since. Mid-value property crimes are down after a small bump after 2014. "Under $50" property crimes are down. I admit that it is conjecture that all catagories of "under $400" property crimes are down because people gave up reporting them. HOWEVER, that conjecture is supported by a bump in all property crimes in 2015 (before people realized the CJS was ignoring low value crimes) followed by a decline as people gave up making reports once they realized realized the CJS was not going to pursue/prosecute low-value crimes.


I don't have data on $0 bail yet because it is brand new.



It's simple, but you're not going to like the answer. The state can hold the financial assets, of those that have them, hostage to ensure their good behavior. The millionaire who posts $1M bail will lose his financial resources if he reoffends or skips town upon bailed release. The vagrant without a penny to his name has zero incentive not to reoffend or show up to his hearing upon release.

Sure, it's unfair that the rich guy can bail himself out, but no more unfair than the fact he's rich in the first place.

The CJS is supposed to protect the citizenry from offenders as fairly as possible. The order of operations should be:
1. Protect the citizenry
2. Be fair to the accused.

We've reversed the order with $0 bail. Now its: "Be fair to the accused", with protection of the citizenry as an afterthought.

Here's a graph of the relevant data:

Great post full of good data references.

Prop 47 is yet another failure of policy by the politicians that lead the state.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Here's the CA.gov data site: https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/explo...mes-clearances
It's actually:
Under 50 (decreased)
50-200 (decreased)
200-400 (decreased)
Over 400 (increased)

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

Originally Posted by wac_432

The numbers do speak for themselves, and show that Prop 47 failed to make CA safer. Quite the opposite. It's very clear that violent crime is up. It's also clear that the turnaround was 2014. The only thing that changed in 2014 is that prison populations started to decline due to Prop 47 (despite an increasing overall population). Prison population is going to go up as you get more people in the state. Forcing it down by lowering the bar is going to result in more crimes. In this case, violent crime. ...High-value property crimes were down 2012 to 2014 and then increased every year since. Mid-value property crimes are down after a small bump after 2014. "Under $50" property crimes are down. I admit that it is conjecture that all catagories of "under $400" property crimes are down because people gave up reporting them. HOWEVER, that conjecture is supported by a bump in all property crimes in 2015 (before people realized the CJS was ignoring low value crimes) followed by a decline as people gave up making reports once they realized realized the CJS was not going to pursue/prosecute low-value crimes.

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:

In 2014, the crime of "forcible rape" was changed to "rape". The definition was expanded to include both male and female victims and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape. For additional information, see Crime in California 2018, Appendix 1 - Data Characteristics and Known Limitations.

Here is an analysis of the crime rate in California from the same source that you used:

Highlights:
In 2018, there were 444.1 violent crimes and 2362.8 property crimes reported per 100,000 population. California’s property and violent crime rates have generally been in steady decline since 1993.
After reaching a low in 2014, the violent crime rate increased by 8.4 percent from 2014 to 2015, 4.1 percent from 2015 to 2016, and 1.5 percent from 2016 to 2017. In 2018, the violent crime rate decreased 1.5 percent. The property crime rate decreased by 5.1 percent from 2017 to 2018 after decreasing 2.1 percent from 2016 to 2017. Between 2013 and 2018, arson increased by 9.7 percent and burglary decreased by 31.9 percent. Over the same period of time, aggravated assault increased by 13.7 percent.

Originally Posted by wac_432

I don't have data on $0 bail yet because it is brand new. It's simple, but you're not going to like the answer. The state can hold the financial assets, of those that have them, hostage to ensure their good behavior. The millionaire who posts $1M bail will lose his financial resources if he reoffends or skips town upon bailed release. The vagrant without a penny to his name has zero incentive not to reoffend or show up to his hearing upon release. Sure, it's unfair that the rich guy can bail himself out, but no more unfair than the fact he's rich in the first place.

WTH? You don't lose your bail money if you reoffend, where'd you hear that? Here's the deal in California you either have a lot of cash to post bail with the court and you get it all back when your case is over -or- you buy a bail bond from a bail bondsman and pay 10% of the bail amount up front and never see that money again, even if you are released the next day. 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"

Originally Posted by wac_432

The CJS is supposed to protect the citizenry from offenders as fairly as possible. The order of operations should be:
1. Protect the citizenry
2. be fair to the accused.
We've reversed the order with $0 bail. Now its: "Be fair to the accused", with protection of the citizenry as an afterthought.

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

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Great post full of good data references.

Prop 47 is yet another failure of policy by the politicians that lead the state.

What did he prove with all those "data references"?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

What did he prove with all those "data references"?

Originally Posted by wac_432

The numbers do speak for themselves, and show that Prop 47 failed to make CA safer. Quite the opposite.

Pretty clear for all to see.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Pretty clear for all to see.

Actually, what’s clear is that 2sleepy has a PhD in the topic and you haven’t made it through 101.