LOS ANGELES – A group of law enforcement officials gathered in Los Angeles Thursday to blast a measure on the November ballot billed as an effort to keep “non-violent” convicts out of prison, saying the proposition will put dangerous people back on the streets.
“Do we really need more parolees and hard-core criminals on the streets? That’s what Proposition 57 does,” said Brian Moriguchi, president of the Professional Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles.
The proposition, backed heavily by Gov. Jerry Brown, would allow parole consideration for people convicted of “non-violent” felonies after serving the minimum amount of time required as part of their sentence and authorize the awarding of sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior and education. It would also give judges the final say over whether juvenile offenders at least 14 years old should be prosecuted as adults.
Brown and other backers of the measure insist it will put an emphasis on rehabilitation, reducing the likelihood of felons to commit new crimes. They also deny that it will put violent offenders back on the streets, and even non-violent offenders eligible under the proposition would have to prove they are rehabilitated and do not present a danger to the public before they are released.
But Moriguchi and other officials — including Sheriff Jim McDonnell, District Attorney Jackie Lacey and county Supervisor Mike Antonovich — said the measure is essentially an effort by the state to relieve its prison- overcrowding problem at the expense of community safety.
“Some of the crimes that are involved that people would be eligible for early release from prison include rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving a sex act with minors, drive by shooting, assault with a deadly weapon, taking a hostage, domestic violence involving trauma, supplying firearms to a gang member, lewd acts upon a child, a hate crime causing physical injury, failing to register as a sex offender, arson including great bodily injury, and discharging a firearm on school grounds… These are very violent crimes,” Sheriff McDonnell said at the press conference Thursday. [View video from the press conference here.]
Moriguchi said the recent killings of Los Angeles County sheriff’s Sgt. Steve Owen and Palm Springs police Officers Lesley Zerebny and Jose Gilbert Vega were carried out by parolees.
Antonovich said Proposition 57 will follow the path of legislation known as AB 109, which redirected some low-level offenders to county jails instead of state prisons, often leading to them serving less time than they otherwise would. He said that legislation was also expected to apply to only “non- violent” offenders.
“What happened? Seventy percent are either high-risk or very high risk,” Antonovich said.
“It’s time that we wake up and get realistic,” he said. “We need to protect our communities, we need to protect our people. … We need to unite to return this state to a Golden State where it’s safe to walk the streets instead of having fear where people in the community are now having to buy private security to supplement the local law enforcement to protect their property and protect their lives and families.”
Supporters of the measure deny allegations that the measure would result in felons being automatically released from prison or authorize parole for violent offenders.
“Overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions led the U.S. Supreme Court to order the state to reduce its prison population,” Brown and other supporters wrote in its ballot argument in favor of the measure. “Now, without a common-sense, long-term solution, we will continue to waste billions and risk a court-ordered release of dangerous prisoners. This is an unacceptable outcome that puts Californians in danger — and this is why we need Prop 57.”
Read more about Proposition 57 at http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/57/.
—
Joe Smith says
No No and No again on 57 you commit the crime you do the time plain and simple. If this is truly to save taxpayer money then how about we reform one of the biggest fraudulent abused entitlement program there is Section 8 by not making it a lifetime benefit (except for the elderly and disabled). Instead put a time limit on it sort off the way UE benefits are run 6 months and your done, I bet that would make some people actually start looking for ways to better themselves.
callingitasitis says
Prop 57 states
1) Protect & Enhance public safety, 2) Save money by reducing wasteful spending on prisons 3)
Prevent federal court from indiscriminately releasing prisoner 4) STOP the revolving door of crime by EMPHASIZING REHABILITATION, *especially for juveniles 5) require a judge, not the prosecutor to decide whether juveniles should be tried in adult court. You can locate this info on page 141 of your official voter information guide.
1) Having criminals out and about IS NOT enhancement of safety. The system in LA County is already diverting criminals by offering probation.
2) Saving money is not the goal of putting someone in prison it is OUR public safety. And creating a revolving door like prop 47 will not work for us the tax paying public.
3) Rehab ONLY work if the person really wants it, and juvenile criminal’s good luck. Poor impulse control and crappy parents.
4) The Juvenile system is already a simple slap on the hands where an adult would go to prison for robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, rape by force (listed on page 143, SEC 4.2 section 707 sub section b), why feed them more victims.
5) The federal judges have power over the states, there is no preventing a single release of any inmate, in fact they are the reason our cost is up in the first place. The kind hearted federal judges rule that the State has to pay for what every the feds say we have to pay.
For me I voted No by mail , but you the well inform voter want junior criminals Chicago style running in the street VOTE Yes.
XYZ says
Blast prop. Section 8 then the criminals will have no place to stay.
Frank says
Section 8? Mayor Rex Parris declared war on Section 8. He lost and we the taxpayers paid millions on account of his big mouth. Then he spent millions more on LEAPS which has proven to be a waste. Instead of paying for deputies, we’re paying for a useless plane. All the while, crime is on the rise. I can’t wait to get out of Lancaster.
George says
People its time to lock and load , gov. Brown doesn’t care we need to show his butt who cares help the police ,backem and shoot them if there bad guys its time
John says
Did you read the part about the type of crimes that have been committed by the people that Prop. 57 will release?
Prop. 57 will give early release to people that committed rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex with a minor, drive-by shooting, supplying guns to a gang member, taking a hostage, lewd acts on a child, hate crime involving physical injury, domestic violence involving trauma, failing to register as a sex offender, arson including great bodily injury, discharging a firearm on school grounds.
If you think our streets and neighborhoods are safe enough now to release even more violent criminals then vote yes on Prop. 57.
I voted no on Prop. 57.
Tim Scott says
There’s at least three things on your list of “it will release these heinous people” that are definitely wrong. That calls into question exactly what you read. As usual, the law enforcement community is using wildly exaggerated scare tactics to get their way…which of course involves the most prison guard jobs money can buy no matter how badly that throws the budget out of whack and what has to be cancelled to make up the difference.
Read the text of the actual law, not the OMG nonsense put out by the opponents.
John says
I have read the text of the actual law and it is worse than what has been reported here.
The actual law will give early release to people that committed these crimes when they were 14 or 15 years of age.
Murder, arson, sodomy by force, rape by force, robbery, a lewd act on a child under the age of 14, kidnapping, attempted murder, assault with a firearm, discharging a firearm into an occupied building, torture, aggravated mayhem, carjacking, kidnapping for purpose of sexual assault and voluntary manslaughter.
These are just some the crimes stated in the actual text of the proposed law. Section 707 (b), Subdivision (a).
Jason says
Which three are definitely wrong? This is just another law designed to ease prison crowding at thee expense of public safety. The fact that certain “non-violent” crimes are even eligible for early release shows how badly this law was written
Tim Scott says
Taking a hostage, hate crime with physical injury, and arson including great bodily injury are obviously thrown in by opposition just for the scare factor since they aren’t included in covered non-violent offenses.
That said, the laws that are badly written are the ones that have ballooned the inmate population and associated costs by a factor of five during a time when demographics were driving down violent crime rates so there was actually an opportunity to reduce costs.
Jason says
If they aren’t listed as violent offenses under penal code 667.5, then they are considered non violent offenses as it pertains to this bill and eligible for early release. There are only 23 specific felonies listed that aren’t.
This, just like Prop 47 are badly written. If it were truly about public safety and rehabilitation instead of saving money, these bills would have been written differently.
les says
Jason- You could not have stated it any better by explaining how PC 667.5 will be used in determining the eligible crimes.
Shane Falco says
Tim knows there is no exaggeration or scare tactics, in fact, these “non violent offenders” are anything but that. In the course of a criminal case most convictions result in a willful plea bargain where often the most serious and violent charges in a case are dismissed in exchange for a guilty plea.
If the public were to see the totality of many of the cases where the non violent offender has multiple plead out cases with MULTIPLE violent charges dismissed the public would see tha their release further often emboldens their violence.
Look no further than the murders of Steve Owen and the officers in Palm Springs and see the results of the prop 47, and the hamstrung parole policies to see the real effects of catch and release. Is anybody surprised a criminal himself wants more criminals released?
Laughing says
How un-American, reading pppphhhttt.
You are only supposed to listen to the talking heads on tv during their 15 second sound bites.
Read…. how quaint.
Loretta M Carter says
Im voting yes there are a great many serving way too much time because of enhancements the bad guys are on the streets while kids whose brains weren’t even fully developed are serving outrages sentence s they are making career criminals by institutionalizing young offenders keeping them for decades then when they do get out they are still young children in their minds no way to become productive members of society now im not ignorant I am well aware some of those guys belong there and probably should not come out. But there are thousands of mothers sons in there serving decades for a 2 yr crime because they had a prior most priors are trumped up misde turned felony by the corrupt court system no im gonna vote yes….
Curious says
This is what makes America great. You can vote one way because of personal connection to a specific case and I understand that. I, on the outside see it differently. I see it as, if the parents didn’t “school” their kids and they end up in trouble, than someone has to “school” them. I also don’t believe young children (below 18) should be charged as adults as they are not legally adults. Either change the age of adulthood or leave the juvenile system the way it is.