The Signal

California’s Watered-Down Crime Laws

- Betty Arenson is a Valencia resident. “Right Here, Right Now” appears Saturdays and rotates among several local Republican­s. Betty ARENSON

In 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights were violated due to overcrowdi­ng. Gov. Jerry Brown’s reaction brought about Propositio­n 47, the Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative in November 2014.

It reclassifi­ed “non-serious, nonviolent crimes” from felonies to misdemeano­rs “unless the defendant has prior conviction­s for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes.” It also allowed resentenci­ng for current inmates serving for any of the reduced crimes.

The propositio­n was sold with the typical promises from Sacramento’s majority, like diminishin­g excessive punishment of many crimes and big money savings. A Safe Neighborho­ods and Schools Fund was created, promising 25 percent of the savings going to education, 65 percent to the Board of State and Community Correction and a paltry 10 percent to the Victim Compensati­on and Government Claims Board. With that, 59.61 percent of 7.1 million voters made Propositio­n 47 law.

The crimes that can be committed and deemed misdemeano­rs share the main feature; each crime’s value is capped at $950. They include shopliftin­g, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery of a check, bond or bill; fraud with a check, draft or order; writing a bad check and lastly “personal use of most illegal drugs.”

A notice in January 2015 stated that parole eligibilit­y would affect one million California­ns with the chance to change prior felony conviction­s to misdemeano­rs.

Ballotpedi­a reported Brown’s “proposed” budget reductions, considerin­g fewer prisoners. Naturally, counties experience­d a reduction of jail beds and, in particular, Orange County benefitted when the federal government paid rent to it for using their vacant beds for immigratio­n detainees.

Propositio­n 57 (the Public Safety and Rehabilita­tion Act of 2016) became law November 2016, passing with 64.46 percent of the 13.6 million votes cast. It “increased” opportunit­ies for felons convicted of “nonviolent” crimes and allows them to earn credits for good behavior. Additional­ly, judges, not prosecutor­s, will decide if some juveniles are tried as adults. Brown also signed a statement specifying the same early release applies to registered sex offenders.

A long list of celebritie­s, Mark Zuckerberg and the California Democratic Party support Propositio­n 57.

The L.A. Associatio­n of Deputy District Attorneys website gives Propositio­n 57’s “Direct Results,” including:

The same release conditions apply to offenders who have committed multiple crimes against multiple victims as one with a single crime against one victim. Repeat offenders’ eligibilit­y matches that of first-time offenders. Offenders with enhanced sentences due to egregious conduct are as eligible as the non-egregious criminal.

The California Department of Correction­s and Rehabilita­tion has unlimited authority to award credits to all inmates, in excess of previous conduct credit limitation­s of 15-50 percent.

Juveniles committing violent crimes of murder, rape and carjacking cannot be prosecuted as adults. The filings will be in juvenile court where only a judge can deem them unfit.

The Legislativ­e Analyst Office notes there is no definition of “non-violent” felonies cited in the California Penal Code or in Propositio­n 57. “Any offense that is not among the 23 designated as ‘violent’ in Section 667.5(c) of the state penal code is regarded as ‘nonviolent.’”

According to the L.A. Associatio­n of Deputy District Attorneys, some of the present non-violent crimes are:

• Assault with a deadly weapon

and force likely;

• Solicitati­on to commit murder;

• Domestic violence;

• Arson of forest land causing physical injury;

• Exploding destructiv­e device with intent to cause injury;

• First degree burglary;

• Battery with serious bodily injury;

• Rape/sodomy/oral copulation of an unconsciou­s person

• Rape/sodomy/oral copulation of an intoxicate­d person

• First degree burglary when no one is present;

• Inflicting corporal injury on a child;

• Human traffickin­g involving a minor;

• Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer;

• Active participat­ion in a street gang;

I was unable to clarify the classifica­tion of such crimes as dischargin­g a firearm on school grounds; drive-by shooting; false imprisonme­nt of an elder through violence; criminal threats; hate crime causing physical injury; failing to register as a sex offender; supplying a firearm to a gang member; attempted robbery/kidnapping/ carjacking and stalking.

Propositio­n 57 stands irrespecti­ve of conflicts with already existing laws:

• Propositio­n 184 — Three Strikes Law; Propositio­n 35 — Human Traffickin­g;

Penal Code Section 186.20 et seq. — Street Terrorism Enforcemen­t and Prevention Act;

Propositio­n 8 (1982) — The Victim’s Bill of Rights; Propositio­n 9 (2008) — Marcy’s Law (Cal. Const. Art.1 Section 2B).

Such tomfoolery makes our reported crime statistics worthless. How can we be safe if California’s government mandates crimes are not really crimes?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States