Let us start with the local angle first. It is no surprise that Jeff Reisig would oppose Proposition 5, just about all of law enforcement and prosecutors have. I know it’s not a perfect law but the situation with non-violent drug offenders in prisons is fundamentally unsustainable and the dam will break. And when it does, prosecutors and law enforcement will likely wind up with a far more reactionary and broader law. This would have been a chance to let some of the air out from the pressure building on the system.
This is from the bi-partisan Little Hoover Commission report on California’s prisons:
“California’s correctional system is in a tailspin that threatens public safety and raises the risk of fiscal disaster. The failing correctional system is the largest and most immediate crisis facing policy-makers. For decades, governors and lawmakers fearful of appearing soft on crime have failed to muster the political will to address the looming crisis. And now their time has run out.”
The real interesting point of focus is that Jeff Reisig, the Yolo County District Attorney, sent the same letter to Davis as he did to Woodland. Why would he do that?
Tying in another loose thread here, the Davis Enterprise reported yesterday an interesting little factoid on local fundraising and the Presidential Election.
Barack Obama has raised $353,258 from Yolo County residents compared with $113,950 for McCain.
The city of Davis raised 85 percent of that–$298,672–compared to just $37,531 for McCain. That’s an 8 to 1 advantage.
One other little tidbit is that Woodland raised more than half of McCain’s countywide total.
Neither of these facts are particularly surprising. But they do suggest that maybe the good DA might want to re-think sending the same letter to Enterprise as he did to the Daily Democrat.
He writes:
“The first thing voters should know is that the proponents of this so-called ‘Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act’ include billionaire George Soros and the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance…”
Ah the George Soros boogie man. Now, Mr. Reisig, that might work in say Woodland, but my guess is that most of Davis does not view George Soros as nearly the anti-Christ that the right wingers up in Woodland do. I am not saying everyone is in line with George Soros, but I am guessing to most Davisites, he is not a pariah and to many, they are appreciative of his efforts to remove President Bush in the 2004 election.
The lesson here is target your message. Someone is going to point out to me that he said a lot more than just that in his letter, but see, his decision to attack George Soros distracted me from his ultimate message. That just proves my point.
But for good measure, our district attorney gives us another little strawman argument:
“Prop. 5 is not limited to simple drug possession offenses. Virtually any criminal who claims to have a drug problem would be permitted a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card. “
This is of course completely untrue. The only people eligible for Proposition 5 diversion are for those who are ONLY charged with non-violent drug possession offenses. The law specifically defines “non-violent drug possession offense” as “the unlawful, personal use, possession for personal use, or transportation for personal use or being under the influence of any controlled substance…”
So it appears that District Attorney Reisig was inaccurate on this charge which is a pretty standard distortion thrown out by the law enforcement agencies against this proposition. And he certainly should have used better discretion than to submit the same letter to both the Enterprise and the Daily Democrat, given the differences in the likely responses. But at least I’ll give him this: he did appear to write the letter himself, unlike our Sheriff with regards to the pro-Proposition 6 letter.
Arnold Stumps for McCain
That leads me to the Governor of California’s appearance in Ohio for John McCain foundering campaign.
And this is more of a mixed view. As commentators point out, the Governor inspired larger than usual crowds for a McCain rally. He clearly excited the crowds in ways that John McCain is just not capable of doing.
But Arnold is a double-edged sword. In California, Arnold has an approval rating not much better than President Bush’s nationally. Last month it registered at just 35%. And he is coming off a very bloody period with the budget showdown.
The question is really whether Barack Obama really needs to make an issue of all of this. It may just be that Obama will go about his business knowing that McCain is running out of time and Arnold’s appearance will do very little for him.
But there is more. First of all, Arnold decided to poke fun at the physique of Obama.
Then he launched into the tax issue.
As the Sacramento Bee reports:
During his speech, the governor recognized the awkward position of having to tailor his speech to McCain’s anti-tax message while having proposed raising taxes this week in his own state to offset an estimated $10 billion revenue shortfall.
“Now just because you want to raise a tax certainly doesn’t make you a socialist because in California I have proposed a temporary sales tax increase to address our massive deficit,” he said. “But Sen. Obama wants to raise the taxes because of ideology. He wants to raise all kinds of taxes. He wants to raise the taxes on capital gains and dividends.”
The phrase “flimsy excuse” comes to mind. For Arnold tax increases are okay because they deal with the deficit, for Obama they are not because it is part of his ideology, rather than looking to fix the tax and revenue system that was put out of whack by Bush’s tax policies from the early 90s that led to huge growths in deficits.
Not to mention, McCain’s message gets stepped on because he has argued that the last thing we need is a tax increase during these economic times, and yet that is exactly now what Arnold is proposing–and a sales tax puts the burden on the middle class while Obama’s proposal shifts the burden to those who can most afford to pay a bit more.
It all seems like mental gymnastics to me and it would be easy enough for Obama to make a big deal out of it, but he probably will not, because he does not need to.
We are now just a few days away from finally ending this never ending campaign. It seems like we have been at this non-stop for two years. Oh, that is because we have.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am saddened by law enforcement’s response to Prop 5. This is such an important proposition, both because it provides relief to our prison system and its prohibitive costs, and because it creates the first state drug treatment options for minors. This state really needs this proposition to pass.
I am saddened by law enforcement’s response to Prop 5. This is such an important proposition, both because it provides relief to our prison system and its prohibitive costs, and because it creates the first state drug treatment options for minors. This state really needs this proposition to pass.
I am saddened by law enforcement’s response to Prop 5. This is such an important proposition, both because it provides relief to our prison system and its prohibitive costs, and because it creates the first state drug treatment options for minors. This state really needs this proposition to pass.
I am saddened by law enforcement’s response to Prop 5. This is such an important proposition, both because it provides relief to our prison system and its prohibitive costs, and because it creates the first state drug treatment options for minors. This state really needs this proposition to pass.
The Prison Guard Union is also for Prop 5. Should we spend more on the Prison Industry Complex or Education. The choice is clear.
The Prison Guard Union is also for Prop 5. Should we spend more on the Prison Industry Complex or Education. The choice is clear.
The Prison Guard Union is also for Prop 5. Should we spend more on the Prison Industry Complex or Education. The choice is clear.
The Prison Guard Union is also for Prop 5. Should we spend more on the Prison Industry Complex or Education. The choice is clear.
From the Los Angeles Times editorial on Prop 5:
Under Proposition 5, an addict caught breaking into a home would be exempt from incarceration if his reason was to feed his addiction and if he agreed to treatment. Judges would likewise be unable to jail someone who stole a car, abused a spouse, drove under the influence (and injured someone), possessed an illegal weapon or committed a host of other crimes — as long as the perpetrator swore that drugs made him do it. Even dealers profiting from others’ addictions would be offered diversion. Addicts would get repeated chances at rehab instead of incarceration, no matter how seriously they tried — or didn’t — to kick their habit.
From the Los Angeles Times editorial on Prop 5:
Under Proposition 5, an addict caught breaking into a home would be exempt from incarceration if his reason was to feed his addiction and if he agreed to treatment. Judges would likewise be unable to jail someone who stole a car, abused a spouse, drove under the influence (and injured someone), possessed an illegal weapon or committed a host of other crimes — as long as the perpetrator swore that drugs made him do it. Even dealers profiting from others’ addictions would be offered diversion. Addicts would get repeated chances at rehab instead of incarceration, no matter how seriously they tried — or didn’t — to kick their habit.
From the Los Angeles Times editorial on Prop 5:
Under Proposition 5, an addict caught breaking into a home would be exempt from incarceration if his reason was to feed his addiction and if he agreed to treatment. Judges would likewise be unable to jail someone who stole a car, abused a spouse, drove under the influence (and injured someone), possessed an illegal weapon or committed a host of other crimes — as long as the perpetrator swore that drugs made him do it. Even dealers profiting from others’ addictions would be offered diversion. Addicts would get repeated chances at rehab instead of incarceration, no matter how seriously they tried — or didn’t — to kick their habit.
From the Los Angeles Times editorial on Prop 5:
Under Proposition 5, an addict caught breaking into a home would be exempt from incarceration if his reason was to feed his addiction and if he agreed to treatment. Judges would likewise be unable to jail someone who stole a car, abused a spouse, drove under the influence (and injured someone), possessed an illegal weapon or committed a host of other crimes — as long as the perpetrator swore that drugs made him do it. Even dealers profiting from others’ addictions would be offered diversion. Addicts would get repeated chances at rehab instead of incarceration, no matter how seriously they tried — or didn’t — to kick their habit.
The Los Angeles Times is wrong. Read the actual Proposition, it explains that this is merely for simple drug offenses.
The Los Angeles Times is wrong. Read the actual Proposition, it explains that this is merely for simple drug offenses.
The Los Angeles Times is wrong. Read the actual Proposition, it explains that this is merely for simple drug offenses.
The Los Angeles Times is wrong. Read the actual Proposition, it explains that this is merely for simple drug offenses.
Here’s the analysis from the Secretary of State:
Proposition 5
Tracks I, II, and III—Eligibility and Period of Participation
Eligibility Requirements Time Period in Diversion
Track I
Who Is Included:
* Offender charged with nonviolent drug possession offenses who is eligible for deferred entry of judgment programs. A prosecutor would have the burden of proof to show that an offender was ineligible.
* Offender charged with one or more nonviolent drug possession offenses.
Who Is Excluded:
* Offender would be excluded if he or she has (1) current or prior conviction for a violent or serious offense or (2) prior conviction for any felony within the prior five years. However, an offender with one prior conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense would be eligible.
* Generally, an offender would be excluded if charged with a non-drug related offense, but a judge would have the discretion to allow participation.
So, from that perspective the judge would have some discretion, but realistically this program is not going to be a get-out-of-jail free card.
Here’s the analysis from the Secretary of State:
Proposition 5
Tracks I, II, and III—Eligibility and Period of Participation
Eligibility Requirements Time Period in Diversion
Track I
Who Is Included:
* Offender charged with nonviolent drug possession offenses who is eligible for deferred entry of judgment programs. A prosecutor would have the burden of proof to show that an offender was ineligible.
* Offender charged with one or more nonviolent drug possession offenses.
Who Is Excluded:
* Offender would be excluded if he or she has (1) current or prior conviction for a violent or serious offense or (2) prior conviction for any felony within the prior five years. However, an offender with one prior conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense would be eligible.
* Generally, an offender would be excluded if charged with a non-drug related offense, but a judge would have the discretion to allow participation.
So, from that perspective the judge would have some discretion, but realistically this program is not going to be a get-out-of-jail free card.
Here’s the analysis from the Secretary of State:
Proposition 5
Tracks I, II, and III—Eligibility and Period of Participation
Eligibility Requirements Time Period in Diversion
Track I
Who Is Included:
* Offender charged with nonviolent drug possession offenses who is eligible for deferred entry of judgment programs. A prosecutor would have the burden of proof to show that an offender was ineligible.
* Offender charged with one or more nonviolent drug possession offenses.
Who Is Excluded:
* Offender would be excluded if he or she has (1) current or prior conviction for a violent or serious offense or (2) prior conviction for any felony within the prior five years. However, an offender with one prior conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense would be eligible.
* Generally, an offender would be excluded if charged with a non-drug related offense, but a judge would have the discretion to allow participation.
So, from that perspective the judge would have some discretion, but realistically this program is not going to be a get-out-of-jail free card.
Here’s the analysis from the Secretary of State:
Proposition 5
Tracks I, II, and III—Eligibility and Period of Participation
Eligibility Requirements Time Period in Diversion
Track I
Who Is Included:
* Offender charged with nonviolent drug possession offenses who is eligible for deferred entry of judgment programs. A prosecutor would have the burden of proof to show that an offender was ineligible.
* Offender charged with one or more nonviolent drug possession offenses.
Who Is Excluded:
* Offender would be excluded if he or she has (1) current or prior conviction for a violent or serious offense or (2) prior conviction for any felony within the prior five years. However, an offender with one prior conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense would be eligible.
* Generally, an offender would be excluded if charged with a non-drug related offense, but a judge would have the discretion to allow participation.
So, from that perspective the judge would have some discretion, but realistically this program is not going to be a get-out-of-jail free card.
More food for thought, along the same lines–bipartisan failure of prison policy:
Hit the link
This one probably does not pass, but if you look at the budget, you recognize that this situation is untenable. The law enforcement community are going to end up with something far worse unless they step up and fix this.
More food for thought, along the same lines–bipartisan failure of prison policy:
Hit the link
This one probably does not pass, but if you look at the budget, you recognize that this situation is untenable. The law enforcement community are going to end up with something far worse unless they step up and fix this.
More food for thought, along the same lines–bipartisan failure of prison policy:
Hit the link
This one probably does not pass, but if you look at the budget, you recognize that this situation is untenable. The law enforcement community are going to end up with something far worse unless they step up and fix this.
More food for thought, along the same lines–bipartisan failure of prison policy:
Hit the link
This one probably does not pass, but if you look at the budget, you recognize that this situation is untenable. The law enforcement community are going to end up with something far worse unless they step up and fix this.
Reisig:Republican. End of story.
Reisig:Republican. End of story.
Reisig:Republican. End of story.
Reisig:Republican. End of story.
Is this new comment format structure to remain as it has for the last few days? It is taking a little time adjusting to it.
Is this new comment format structure to remain as it has for the last few days? It is taking a little time adjusting to it.
Is this new comment format structure to remain as it has for the last few days? It is taking a little time adjusting to it.
Is this new comment format structure to remain as it has for the last few days? It is taking a little time adjusting to it.
It is unless someone convinces me why it shouldn’t. Email me if you have complaints.
Email me
It is unless someone convinces me why it shouldn’t. Email me if you have complaints.
Email me
It is unless someone convinces me why it shouldn’t. Email me if you have complaints.
Email me
It is unless someone convinces me why it shouldn’t. Email me if you have complaints.
Email me
Attorney General Jerry Brown on Proposition 5; excerpts from his commentary on huffingtonpost.com:
…. The unintended consequence will be the creation of new entitlements that will cost California billions dollars that it simply does not have. …
…reducing parole from three years to six months and by depriving judges of the authority to impose meaningful sanctions for repeated drug abuse. ….
Proposition 5 is profoundly undemocratic because its provisions can only be changed by 4/5s of the state legislature and because it vests near total control of drug treatment in an unprecedented 23 member Treatment Diversion Commission, dominated by providers, criminal defense lawyers, drug researchers and policy activists. These are the very individuals whose livelihoods will benefit from the commission’s funding decisions. ….
… Proposition 5 provides very weak incentives for drug addicts to discontinue using drugs while in treatment. We know that the hammer of incarceration is often what is needed to assist an addict to get off his dependency. ….
Proposition 5 was drafted without any public process and without seriously taking into account the well considered opinions of drug court judges who deal with drug abusers on a daily basis. It creates unaccountable and unelected bureaucracies that usurp the role of elected representative and locks them into fixed terms.
Such a radical restructuring of the way California deals with drug abuse should never be written into a ballot measure that allows for no amendments and no real critical scrutiny. Proposition 5 could have provided sensible, understandable and needed improvements to the criminal Justice System. Unfortunately, it did not. Not even close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-brown/the-failures-of-californi_b_140110.html
Attorney General Jerry Brown on Proposition 5; excerpts from his commentary on huffingtonpost.com:
…. The unintended consequence will be the creation of new entitlements that will cost California billions dollars that it simply does not have. …
…reducing parole from three years to six months and by depriving judges of the authority to impose meaningful sanctions for repeated drug abuse. ….
Proposition 5 is profoundly undemocratic because its provisions can only be changed by 4/5s of the state legislature and because it vests near total control of drug treatment in an unprecedented 23 member Treatment Diversion Commission, dominated by providers, criminal defense lawyers, drug researchers and policy activists. These are the very individuals whose livelihoods will benefit from the commission’s funding decisions. ….
… Proposition 5 provides very weak incentives for drug addicts to discontinue using drugs while in treatment. We know that the hammer of incarceration is often what is needed to assist an addict to get off his dependency. ….
Proposition 5 was drafted without any public process and without seriously taking into account the well considered opinions of drug court judges who deal with drug abusers on a daily basis. It creates unaccountable and unelected bureaucracies that usurp the role of elected representative and locks them into fixed terms.
Such a radical restructuring of the way California deals with drug abuse should never be written into a ballot measure that allows for no amendments and no real critical scrutiny. Proposition 5 could have provided sensible, understandable and needed improvements to the criminal Justice System. Unfortunately, it did not. Not even close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-brown/the-failures-of-californi_b_140110.html
Attorney General Jerry Brown on Proposition 5; excerpts from his commentary on huffingtonpost.com:
…. The unintended consequence will be the creation of new entitlements that will cost California billions dollars that it simply does not have. …
…reducing parole from three years to six months and by depriving judges of the authority to impose meaningful sanctions for repeated drug abuse. ….
Proposition 5 is profoundly undemocratic because its provisions can only be changed by 4/5s of the state legislature and because it vests near total control of drug treatment in an unprecedented 23 member Treatment Diversion Commission, dominated by providers, criminal defense lawyers, drug researchers and policy activists. These are the very individuals whose livelihoods will benefit from the commission’s funding decisions. ….
… Proposition 5 provides very weak incentives for drug addicts to discontinue using drugs while in treatment. We know that the hammer of incarceration is often what is needed to assist an addict to get off his dependency. ….
Proposition 5 was drafted without any public process and without seriously taking into account the well considered opinions of drug court judges who deal with drug abusers on a daily basis. It creates unaccountable and unelected bureaucracies that usurp the role of elected representative and locks them into fixed terms.
Such a radical restructuring of the way California deals with drug abuse should never be written into a ballot measure that allows for no amendments and no real critical scrutiny. Proposition 5 could have provided sensible, understandable and needed improvements to the criminal Justice System. Unfortunately, it did not. Not even close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-brown/the-failures-of-californi_b_140110.html
Attorney General Jerry Brown on Proposition 5; excerpts from his commentary on huffingtonpost.com:
…. The unintended consequence will be the creation of new entitlements that will cost California billions dollars that it simply does not have. …
…reducing parole from three years to six months and by depriving judges of the authority to impose meaningful sanctions for repeated drug abuse. ….
Proposition 5 is profoundly undemocratic because its provisions can only be changed by 4/5s of the state legislature and because it vests near total control of drug treatment in an unprecedented 23 member Treatment Diversion Commission, dominated by providers, criminal defense lawyers, drug researchers and policy activists. These are the very individuals whose livelihoods will benefit from the commission’s funding decisions. ….
… Proposition 5 provides very weak incentives for drug addicts to discontinue using drugs while in treatment. We know that the hammer of incarceration is often what is needed to assist an addict to get off his dependency. ….
Proposition 5 was drafted without any public process and without seriously taking into account the well considered opinions of drug court judges who deal with drug abusers on a daily basis. It creates unaccountable and unelected bureaucracies that usurp the role of elected representative and locks them into fixed terms.
Such a radical restructuring of the way California deals with drug abuse should never be written into a ballot measure that allows for no amendments and no real critical scrutiny. Proposition 5 could have provided sensible, understandable and needed improvements to the criminal Justice System. Unfortunately, it did not. Not even close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-brown/the-failures-of-californi_b_140110.html
None of you here have any idea what extent drug users go to get their “Fix”. The druggies would love this to pass so they can keep using while on a treatment program.
Yes, if it passes, it will cost billions that could have gone to education. How do I know this? I work closely with lots of drug users,”addicts”. They will do anything for a fix. Hopefully the fools will not be in the majority.
None of you here have any idea what extent drug users go to get their “Fix”. The druggies would love this to pass so they can keep using while on a treatment program.
Yes, if it passes, it will cost billions that could have gone to education. How do I know this? I work closely with lots of drug users,”addicts”. They will do anything for a fix. Hopefully the fools will not be in the majority.
None of you here have any idea what extent drug users go to get their “Fix”. The druggies would love this to pass so they can keep using while on a treatment program.
Yes, if it passes, it will cost billions that could have gone to education. How do I know this? I work closely with lots of drug users,”addicts”. They will do anything for a fix. Hopefully the fools will not be in the majority.
None of you here have any idea what extent drug users go to get their “Fix”. The druggies would love this to pass so they can keep using while on a treatment program.
Yes, if it passes, it will cost billions that could have gone to education. How do I know this? I work closely with lots of drug users,”addicts”. They will do anything for a fix. Hopefully the fools will not be in the majority.
I have an idea that:
(A) the current system doesn’t work
(B) We are spending a lot of money on it
(C) We are spending a lot of money to lock people up who are not particularly dangerous
so, what’s your solution, right now the system is unsustainable and you will get a far worse solution down the line unless something is changed.
I have an idea that:
(A) the current system doesn’t work
(B) We are spending a lot of money on it
(C) We are spending a lot of money to lock people up who are not particularly dangerous
so, what’s your solution, right now the system is unsustainable and you will get a far worse solution down the line unless something is changed.
I have an idea that:
(A) the current system doesn’t work
(B) We are spending a lot of money on it
(C) We are spending a lot of money to lock people up who are not particularly dangerous
so, what’s your solution, right now the system is unsustainable and you will get a far worse solution down the line unless something is changed.
I have an idea that:
(A) the current system doesn’t work
(B) We are spending a lot of money on it
(C) We are spending a lot of money to lock people up who are not particularly dangerous
so, what’s your solution, right now the system is unsustainable and you will get a far worse solution down the line unless something is changed.