Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff reported this week that since Jan. 1, his department has “been forced to early release 5,470 inmates” from local jails as a result of overcrowding.
Under a federal court order, Sniff said he is required “to release inmates anytime our Riverside County jail system exceeds [its] official rated capacity.”
While Sniff contends with crowded county jails, state prisons could be impacted on Nov. 6 when California voters decide the fate of third strike offenders and inmates sentenced to death.
Local Jails
The sheriff has repeatedly stated that jail overcrowding is due to which was signed into law last year and mandates that most offenders convicted after Oct. 1, 2011 of a non-violent crime be sentenced to county jail, not state prison.
The legislation was crafted in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that found California’s state prison system was overcrowded and needed to dramatically reduce its inmate population.
“It was the State's complete failure to address its chronic and severe prison overcrowding over the years that ultimately is directly responsible for the recent and precipitous transfer of thousands of inmates to our local jails and to local oversight, all under California Assembly Bill 109 (Realignment) in 2011,” Sniff said this week. “This has had a disastrous impact on our local jails across California, causing increasingly severe overcrowding problems.”
Sniff argues that AB 109 was not thought through carefully, and the legislature “has not cleaned up the bill's serious flaws.”
He went on to say that the Sheriff’s Department will put together a staff package over the next few weeks of recommended legislative fixes for AB 109.
The Question For Voters
As law enforcement and elected officials grapple with local jail overcrowding, two statewide initiatives are on the ballot this year that could impact California’s prison population.
Proposition 36 asks voters if they want to revise the state’s Three Strikes law. If passed, Prop. 36 would mandate that if a felon with two prior serious or violent felony convictions gets a third strike, life in prison would only be imposed if the third conviction is also “serious or violent.”
Prop. 36 proponents maintain anyone convicted of an “extremely violent crime” — such as rape, murder, or child molestation — will still receive a life sentence no matter how minor the third strike crime.
By shortening the sentencing for specific third strike offenders, Prop. 36 proponents argue more than $100 million in California taxpayer money would be saved annually. Critics urge Prop. 36 will release dangerous criminals early.
Under AB 109, a felon convicted of prior serious or violent crimes is sentenced to prison – not county jail – for subsequent crimes.
Also on the ballot this year is Proposition 34, which, if passed, will repeal California’s death penalty.
Proponents argue Prop. 34 would save taxpayer dollars if passed; opponents say the initiative costs the state.
Impact On Local Jails And State Prisons
Pass or fail, Prop. 34 is not expected to have an immediate impact on the state’s prison population given California's current moratorium on Capital Punishment. As for how much impact Prop. 36 could have on the state’s prison population, opponents of the measure claim up to 3,000 prisoners could potentially receive shortened sentences.
The Yes on 36 camp is not making claims that passage of the proposition will alleviate local jail overcrowding, but according to the “Yes on 36, Three Strikes Reform” campaign sponsored by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Prop. 36 “will help ensure that there is room in our prisons for truly dangerous criminals … .”
Contract this work to out-of-state private prisons. I don't care if their families are here - Send these offenders to North Dakota or some place similar. The liklihood is that their rat-bag families will follow them there and we'll be rid of two pariahs!
The arguments in support of Pro. 34, the ballot measure to abolish the death penalty, are exaggerated at best and, in most cases, misleading and false. No “savings.” Alleged savings ignore increased life-time medical costs for aging inmates and require decreased security levels and housing 2-3 inmates per cell rather than one. Rather than spending 23 hours/day in their cell, inmates will be required to work. These changes will lead to increased violence for other inmates and guards and prove unworkable for these killers. Also, without the death penalty, the lack of incentive to plead the case to avoid the death penalty will lead to more trial and related costs and appeals. No “accountability.” Max earnings for any inmate would amount to $383/year (assuming 100% of earnings went to victims), divided by number of qualifying victims. Hardly accounts for murdering a loved one.
Efforts are also being made to get rid of life sentences. (Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, 2012.) This would lead to possible paroles for not only the 729 on death row, but the 34,000 others serving life sentences. On 9/30/12, Brown passed the first step, signing a bill to allow 309 inmates with life sentences for murder to be paroled after serving as little as 15 years. Life without parole is meaningless. Remember Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan. Convicted killers get out and kill again, such as Darryl Thomas Kemp, Kenneth Allen McDuff, and Bennie Demps. Arguments of innocence bogus. Can’t identify one innocent person executed in CA. Can’t identify one person on CA’s death row who has exhausted his appeals and has a plausible claim of innocence. See http://cadeathpenalty.webs.com/
I strongly doubt Jason's statements about heath coverage and retirement as well as they don't jive with anything I've seen or heard, and I have been in law enforcement since before Jason was born.
As clearly stated by Charles Avery, CA prison guards have one of the most lucrative compensation plans going. If you are expecting a prison guard to show up, when you dial 911, I wish you all the best!
Oh hell yeah! "I think they should use them for medical/scientific testing instead of using animals! "