Crime Must Have Consequence

I’m not one to argue that all criminals need to go to jail. I believe that there are many folks, specifically first time offenders that could use counseling or other forms of therapy that could truly help them turn their lives around. But at the end of the day, crime must have some sort of consequence.

Several years ago in California our state government was sued because of overcrowding in our prison system. This was a hot button political item that had been brewing for several years. I don’t like to delve into politics because frankly it’s just not my cup of tea. However this lawsuit resulted in a court order that required our prisons to reduce its population. This court order was when A.B. 109 was born. 

A.B. 109 in short reclassified prisoners from mid threat to low threat and also reclassified those that are on parole and redefined what parole was in California. A.B. 109 was also sold to the voters as a cost saving measure for our state taxes. That little part of A.B. 109 turned out to be a wolf in sheep‘s clothing. Because the state shifted supervision of folks on parole for the most part to the counties. That also meant that some of these state prisoners would be shifted to county jails. County jails are simply not set up for long time prisoner housing. This caused and is still causing a huge burden on our counties and it’s judicial systems.

Again I won’t comment on the implications as they were advertised in this proposition. I won’t comment on the political side of this proposition. I only want to talk about the results of this proposition and the ones that were similar that followed (Props 47 & 57).

My thoughts today we’re sort of spurned on by the article that appeared in the San Jose Mercury news regarding how and what kinds of crimes Santa Clara county jail would now accept for booking. 

I don’t offer this opinion as any sort of criticism for the sheriffs office or prosecutors in Santa Clara County. They are the boots on the ground in their county and I do not know or have all the facts that they have, right now. But I believe that their action is a result of last six or seven years of these different varying bills and propositions that have come forward to the voters of our state and have been passed by the voters of our state (California). 

Certainly there are many examples of folks that have been caught up in crime a young age and have now rehabilitated themselves and are actively involved in the betterment of our communities. Many successful stories in this arena in our state. If you or one of those folks then I congratulate you and appreciate your hard work to overcome those issues, truly. 

I like to use examples because I think it aids folks understanding of a given issue and puts them in the drivers seat of their minds eye. 

So here’s my example of what is routine now when the police officer responds to a crime (within these guidelines) that has occurred. Take the example of the officer who responds to a petty theft at the commercial building say for examples sake a Target or Kmart. The officer responds to the call for service and makes contact with the reporting party. The reporting party at these facilities is usually a security officer. The reporting party then explains what he/she saw, provides the officer with video or other evidence. The officer makes contact with the perpetrator of this crime. Ten years ago we would arrest the suspect and later book them into a jail facility (or at least had that option). Now we respond to the crime scene and nine out of ten times we write a ticket for the crime. In my opinion that’s totally ineffective and complete nonsense. Imagine if you owned a small mom-and-pop store and you had to report a crime like this. You watch the officer walked in and write a ticket to the perpetrator. You watch the perpetrator walked out free as a bird before the officer did. That would be very frustrating for that store owner.

The ugly truth, and there are many that don’t want talk about now, is crime has increased in many locations throughout our great state. Crime in regards to burglaries, thefts and even some violent crime is on the increase. 

The great experiment is not working. And to me it appears to be an utter failure. 

If the intent was to reduce jail population because there was a court order for that then I agree that some crimes could be reclassified in order for those releases to take affect. However I do not think that this was studied long enough. I do not believe that there is adequate research that points to these particular crimes contained in A.B. 109, are the ones that are most effective for this purpose. Likewise I do not have a list of crimes that I feel personally, would be most effective because I have not studied it enough to draw any conclusions. I cannot totally fault the author of this assembly bill because I do not know the depth his or her research into the particular crimes listed to quantify the effectiveness for this purpose. I only know what I see now. What I see is not working.

What I believe is that legislative action needs to be taken on all or part of A.B. 109 and propositions 47 and 57. In theory all of these laws should have had the effect that was reported to have had. Its the application and the details that have gotten in the way. I think all of these laws need to be re-examined and adjusted with honest and measurable goals.

That’s my two cents on A.B. 109 , propositions 47 and 57. As I said in the beginning crime must have consequence. Consequence can be re-training, work furlough, counseling, jail, fines and other methods to help folks to curb themselves away from a life of crime. I think a combination of some of those or simply one of those can be effective for many of our offenders.

That is all I have for now. Be good to each other.

Chief