Everyone believes that AB 109, the prison realignment bill, will be a game changer, but as we have noted in previous articles and columns, no one knows just how it will play out.
There has been a good deal of outcry on the part of local law enforcement that we lack facility room for the inmates, but the goals of the state law are to force the counties, which are tasked with prosecuting these individuals to begin with, to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues. Prior to AB 109, there was no cost to the counties for having stiffer charging policies.
Despite this, the Vanguard has gotten word in the field that the Yolo County DA’s office, in a county that ranks low in the state in crime rate but high in incarceration rate, has come forward with tougher policies rather than weaker ones.
DA Jeff Reisig sent out a press release this week issuing a statement on his view of realignment.
He writes, “Despite the fact that our state has benefited from some of the lowest crime rates in decades, these reforms were created and passed on the basis that California’s prison system has become drastically overcrowded over the years and a theory that a focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration may prove to be more effective in reducing long term recidivism.”
He also notes that the state’s economy and budget woes play a factor in AB 109.
“The end result of this seismic shift in our criminal justice system is that tens of thousands of convicted felons statewide, who would have gone to state prison in the past for their crimes, will now stay in our local communities in county jails or alternative programs,” he writes.
Mr. Reisig continues, “The reality is that many local county jails, including ours in Yolo County, are already overcrowded at times with inmates awaiting trials and/or serving local sentences. While the new realignment laws will certainly help the state deal with its overcrowded state prison, the counties will be more impacted than ever. Such local overcrowding will most certainly result in some early releases of those awaiting trial or serving sentences.”
The result will be, according to the DA, “Lowered expectations about what many of us would consider traditional types of punishment for certain types of crimes seem most obvious. In addition, our citizenry must also appreciate that many of these offenders may never leave our communities to serve their sentences, some of which could last for decades. Finally, under these new laws, some convicted criminals may not serve a single day in custody due to a variety of factors and effects of realignment.”
Many believe that judges have lost their power of discretion in recent years, due to mandatory sentencing laws. According to Mr. Reisig, that is about to change as well.
“Another reality is that, unlike anything we have experienced in decades, our local judges will now be tasked with exercising an incredible level of discretion in constructing sentences for countless convicted felons who will remain in our communities,” Mr. Reisig writes.
But Mr. Reisig pledges to continue business as usual: “For our part, the District Attorney’s office will address these new changes in the law by continuing to advocate for just and fair results that are guided by the core principles of seeking the truth, guaranteeing public safety, ensuring the rights of victims are honored, seeking proper punishment and supporting rehabilitation programs where appropriate.”
He continues, “While the California District Attorneys Association did not support these reforms, the reality is that it is now the law and we must follow it as directed. The good news is that in Yolo County we have a strong collaboration among our public safety departments that will help in this major transition.”
It would be interesting to hear what the District Attorney recommends, in light of the federal court ruling.
In the field, we have heard two things. First, AB 109 is changing the way judges are operating.
The second is that the DA is compensating by piling on more charges and increasing their offers.
A defense attorney who practices in Yolo County, Daniel Nicholson, wrote on the Judicial Watch Facebook page that, contrary to what some expect, “It appears that the DA intends to fill the jail with long-term inmates rather than alter their charging and prosecuting policies.”
“This was directly expressed to me by a member of that office, a DDA. The word was that offers will go UP rather than DOWN,” he added.
But he, like many others we spoke to, question the ultimate resolution of this, since at some point there will be “no room at the inn.”
Public Defender Tracie Olson did not respond to a request to comment on the statement from the District Attorney’s office.
Columnist George Skelton, however, discussed in detail the need for Governor Brown’s bold realignment.
He quotes Governor Brown, saying, ” ‘But we can’t sit still and let the courts release 30,000 serious prisoners. We have to do something.’ “
“In truth,” Mr. Skelton writes, “the change was inevitable.” Mr. Skelton then quickly added: “Either the state began to dump thousands of its lower-risk prisoners onto local custody or it would have been forced by federal courts to dump them on the streets.”
As Matt Cate put it: “We’ve either got to reduce the prison population or release 10,000 inmates by Christmas Eve.” As he pointed out, that was equal to two prisons.
At the same time, Mr. Skelton criticized “complainers” like LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, calling them “being disingenuous, at best.”
Writes Mr. Skelton, “Villaraigosa called a news conference Monday to denounce the state for not providing ‘a single dollar to help with the burden’ of incarcerating and monitoring more criminals. ‘That is not alignment. That is political malpractice.’ “
“The state is sending financial help to the counties, including $124 million to Los Angeles County. It’s up to the cities to request a share,” he writes. However, the Mayor of LA told people he is not going to “go begging” the county for money, which basically means he is causing the very problem he is complaining about.
“My favorite hyperbole, however, comes from Republican State Sen. Sharon Runner of the Antelope Valley,” Mr. Skelton writes: ” ‘Now is the time for Californians to get a dog, buy a gun and install an alarm system. The state of California is no longer going to protect you.’ “
“Let’s be honest: The politicians and the voters simply could not continue their decades-long insistence on increasing criminal sentences and enlarging the prison population without raising the money to pay for more cells and guards,” Mr. Skelton writes.
Mr. Skelton further quoted the Governor, ” ‘It is a completely broken system that was mindlessly expanded without understanding the consequences that we are now dealing with,’ ” Brown told reporters. ” ‘We want to protect public safety, but we do have limited resources.’ “
Ironically, Governor Brown, as Mr. Skelton points out, was part of the problem. Back in the 1970s he signed a bill that moved California to a determinate sentencing system which mandated fixing the term for each crime. “Before that, sentencing and release were more flexible, depending a lot on the inmate’s behavior behind bars,” Mr. Skelton writes.
“If a prisoner knows he’s going to spend a determined amount of time for a crime, it may create a deterrent. But then once in prison, there’s no incentive to do work programs, to improve yourself, no incentive that you can get out earlier. That’s bad. That’s very bad,” the Governor told Mr. Skelton. “I think the whole prison system needs to be changed.”
But he’s not there yet. First he is beginning with realignment which shifts responsibility for incarceration to local law enforcement and which should convince most non-Jeff Reisigs of the world that they need to change the way they charge people.
But something has to give.
Writes, Mr. Skelton, “When Brown was governor in 1978, the prison population was roughly 21,000. It accounted for less than 3% of state general fund spending. Currently, there are approximately 160,000 inmates – 140,000 within state prison walls; the rest incarcerated out of state, in camps or locally – and they’re consuming more than 11% of the general fund, or almost $10 billion.”
Perhaps in isolation Yolo County can get away with those policies. But probably not. One of the first things that became available as AB 109 was about to take effect was actual county-level statistics, and that is how we know that Yolo County has a far higher incarceration rate that most other counties, particularly compared to its crime rate.
Should that continue, the state will be monitoring Yolo County, and forcing them to make changes or take on even more inmates.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“For our part, the District Attorney’s office will address these new changes in the law by continuing to advocate for just and fair results that are guided by the core principles of seeking the truth, guaranteeing public safety, ensuring the rights of victims are honored, seeking proper punishment and supporting rehabilitation programs where appropriate.”
It is curious to me that this otherwise rather broad statement of “core principles” does not include ensuring that the rights of the accused are honored. An oversight ? Or a reflection of DA Reisig’s point of view ?
[quote]But Mr. Reisig pledges to continue business as usual: “For our part, the District Attorney’s office will address these new changes in the law by continuing to advocate for just and fair results that are guided by the core principles of seeking the truth, guaranteeing public safety, ensuring the rights of victims are honored, seeking proper punishment and supporting rehabilitation programs where appropriate.”
He continues, “While the California District Attorneys Association did not support these reforms, the reality is that it is now the law and we must follow it as directed. The good news is that in Yolo County we have a strong collaboration among our public safety departments that will help in this major transition.”[/quote]
Where do you see in Reisig’s words what you are claiming in this article: “Despite this, the Vanguard has gotten word in the field that the Yolo County DA’s office, in a county that ranks low in the state in crime rate but high in incarceration rate, has come forward with tougher policies rather than weaker ones.”
“Gotten word”? Unnamed sources again? Sorry, I don’t see anything untoward in Reisig’s statements – they seem to me to be reasonable and spot on. Taking courthouse gossip as gospel seems untoward to me…
[i][quote]”…the goals of the state law are to force the counties, which are tasked with prosecuting these individuals to begin with, to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues.”[/quote][/i]Original source, please. Links? Thank you.
[quote][i]”Yolo County has a far higher incarceration rate that most other counties, particularly compared to its crime rate. Should that continue, the state will be monitoring Yolo County, and forcing them to make changes or take on even more inmates.”[/i][/quote]Have you looked for any cause-effect role of our charging and incarceration in our crime rate changes?
What historical data do we have re. Yolo’s incarceration and crime rates and how they compare with other counties’ rates? Seems as though you had something during an earlier discussion.
What’s the evidence that DA Reisig’s a bad actor in this history? As opposed to being the old “tough on crime DA” everyone seems to love (voters, anyway, not crooks).
Has someone in authority in state government expressed concern about the magnitude Yolo County’s incarceration rate? Who said that the state will be monitoring us and forcing us to make changes “should that continue”?
Who said that the state would force us to “take on even more inmates” as a penalty for maintaining a higher incarnation rate than other counties? At first reading, this doesn’t sound very logical and it doesn’t seem that it could be true. How do you know it to be a fact?
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Here’s today’s [u]NYT[/u] report with some different views on what the objectives are in dumping state prisoners to the counties and what concerns authorities have: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/us/california-begins-moving-prisoners.html[/url]
DG: “[T]he goals of the state law are to force the counties, which are tasked with prosecuting these individuals to begin with, to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues.”
That is complete misstatement of fact and irresponsible reporting.You could have, and should have, read AB109 yourself and you’d have seen that the charging decisions wasn’t mentioned or even implied as a goal. I fear that you have created an entirely fictitious statement for the express purpose of once again demonizing the DA. (Heck, if you can’t find a legitimate gripe, make one up, right?)
The authors of AB109, inspired, purely and simply by a federal court order to reduce the CA prison population, and a huge State budget deficit, and nothing more, developed the long-range goal of reducing recidivism through the employment of evidence-based strategies (accountability systems, treatment, skills training, etc.), applied at the more local levels (Counties) for deaing with people convicted of felony crimes.
Reducing recidivism is a noble cause, though it may be very difficult to actually make serious headway. However, fewer and/or lesser criminal charges brought by DA’s would be adopting an irresponsible and fraudulent strategy to bring about that desired recidivism reduction. It would be no different than asking the police to help reduce recidivism by not arresting criminals because there may be difficulty in housing them. That would certainly give the appearance of reduced recidivism, but the truth of the matter is that the crimes would still be being committed and victimization would be increased. And we must assume that wasn’t the intent of AB109. In either case, it is important to know the the intent of AB109 isn’t to reduce prison population or the number of individuals who have earned incarceration (or some other alternative significant liberty sanction) by just ignoring their offenses. It is to bring about meaningful, local commitment and strategies to influence these offenders to not re-offend. Bringing fewer or less serious charges, or not arresting and holding offenders accountable in the first place, is not the way to bring about less re-offending. It just results in less accountability and more actual crime victims.
Shame on you for concealing and subverting the actual and intended, noble goal by trying to create a false “goal” that can only result in more victims and victims who end up forgotten or ignored. This false “goal” and your misguided rhetoric doesn’t really educate or inform. It just appears to permit you to continue your criminal-loving, DA-hating propaganda campaign against Mr. Reisig.
[quote][b]…(Reisig’s office) Seeks to Ratchet Up Charges Even More[/b]
“…the Vanguard has gotten word in the field that the Yolo County DA’s office, in a county that ranks low in the state in crime rate but high in incarceration rate, has come forward with tougher policies rather than weaker ones….In the field, we have heard two things. First, AB 109 is changing the way judges are operating. The second is that the DA is compensating by piling on more charges and increasing their offers.”[/quote]Where is this “in the field” of which you write? [u]Please[/u] confirm that it’s more than just a device to exaggerate the weight of a single defense attorney’s twice-removed hearsay comment on Facebook, [u]please[/u]. But, all alone Mr. Nicholson stands here, “like many others we spoke to”–yet none of the interviewees is quoted to support any of the charges you’ve made about DA Reisig’s “new, tougher” charging and plea deal practices.
Maybe there’s more you can divulge to help readers find validity, or even the slightest basis, for the serious charges you’ve leveled. Without something in addition to what’s here, it looks like just another defense attorney’s whiney gossip–picked up and inflated by the [u]Vanguard[/u] without even questioning its accuracy–aimed at adding to the on-going “Mad Dog Reisig” narrative.[quote][i]”With a (Supreme) court gun to their heads, Brown and Democratic legislators acted. Their solution: Those who commit nonviolent, non-serious and non-sex-related crimes will be incarcerated in county jails instead of sent to state prisons. Such current inmates, when released by the state, will be supervised by county probation officials. Parole violators won’t be sent to prison, they’ll be jailed locally and for less time than previously.” ([u]More from L.A. Times columnist George Skelton[/u])[/i][/quote]Sound as though the process already has the state moving selected prisoners from penitentiaries to county jails–where they’ll remain until the [u]state[/u] decides it’s time to move them again–then, it’s off to parole where the counties will supervise them until their released from parole (at a time also determined by the state?).
[quote][i]”It is curious to me that this otherwise rather broad statement of “core principles” does not include ensuring that the rights of the accused are honored. An oversight ? Or a reflection of DA Reisig’s point of view?”[/i][/quote] I’m still mulling over your find of a possibly missing “core principle,” [b]medwoman[/b]. I’m pretty well satisfied that our DA’s expressed commitment to “address these new changes in the law by continuing to advocate for just and fair results…seeking the truth…seeking proper punishment and supporting rehabilitation programs…” covers an appreciation for rights of the accused and those found guilty.
Using the words “accused’s rights” probably would have improved anybody’s list of “core principles” for justice. Truth, fairness and just results likely would seem to do the job anywhere but in Yolo County, any place but in the [u]Vanguard[/u].
I should have DA Reisig’s statement sooner:
[url]http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=26&recordid=1850&returnURL=/index.aspx?page=510[/url]Apparently David overlooked a number of specific points the DA makes that directly contradict David’s contention that Mr. Reisig “has come forward with tougher policies”:[quote][i]”Sanctions for parole violations will also be handled locally and are sure to be markedly reduced under this criminal justice overhaul….Such local overcrowding will most certainly result in some early releases of those awaiting trial or serving sentences…. Lowered expectations about what many of us would consider traditional types of punishment for certain types of crimes seem most obvious….some convicted criminals may not serve a single day in custody due to a variety of factors and effects of realignment….Another reality is that, unlike anything we have experienced in decades, our local judges will now be tasked with exercising an incredible level of discretion in constructing sentences….”[/i][/quote]These seem like the very realizations and observations that we might read in a [u]Vanguard[/u] commentary looking at the potential impact of California’s incarceration changes.
Every single one is a prediction of [u]less[/u]-tough treatment of those accused and convicted in Yolo County. With respect to Mr. Reisig’s attitudes and intentions, should I believe Messrs. Nicholson and Greenwald or my lyin’ eyes?
Elaine: see the Nicholson quote.
Just Saying: I thought I was doing well getting one quote to support what I have been hearing from many different people. What you are going to have to wait on, is to find some examples in the field to this is happening.
What is the difference between Reisig’s claims and Mr. Nicholson’s? I ask that because you seem to take his word at face value but not Mr. Nicholson’s? I do find it funny that you are willing to take Mr. Reisig’s word but not Mr. Nicholson’s.
What I suspect to be true is some sort of mixture of both. You are going see that in some cases, the DA’s office decides to charge higher and offer worse terms. In other cases, you are going to see reduced probations, supervised OR, where that never would have occurred in the past. And in some cases, you are going to see defense attorneys ask for prison time knowing that if their client gets it, they will be released immediately.
JustSaying
“Sanctions for parole violations……..”
We seem to be reading the same words of the DA, but interpreting his meaning very differently. I interpreted his statement as a reluctant acceptance of what he sees as a regrettable but inevitable outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. I see almost everything he listed as a positive that we should have been working towards rather than a negative which we ,as a state, tried to avoid, at great cost to the taxpayers, with little good to show for our “traditional approach to punishment” even when it became apparent that our approach would not stand.
Did you interpret his statement to mean that he is wholeheartedly embracing this new approach ?
[i][quote]”I see almost everything he listed as a positive that we should have been working towards rather than a negative which we ,as a state, tried to avoid, at great cost to the taxpayers, with little good to show for our “traditional approach to punishment” even when it became apparent that our approach would not stand.”[/quote][/i][b]medwoman[/b], sorry, I’m not able to follow your meaning. Maybe it’s too early. I’m not making the connection between my quote from the DA and interpretation variations. If you’ll give it another shot, I’ll respond.
I agree with your interpretation that the DA, along with most everybody else in California, finds it regrettable that the state is solving its prison overcrowding by shipping thousands of convicts to sometimes overcrowded county jails. I think people agree that the problems in this “solution” are compounded by sending the responsibility to counties with inadequate funding to do an effective job.
I interpret the DA’s statement as a summary of the law, his views on the potential effects on how justice is administered in Yolo County and his pledge to carry out the changes in a positive way. I see nothing inappropriate in what, essentially, is a status report to his constituents.[quote]”Did you interpret his statement to mean that he is wholeheartedly embracing this new approach?”[/quote]If you mean, did he agree with the option that was selected, I don’t think so. (The fact that he notes the California District Attorneys Assn. official stand seems to signal that pretty clearly.)
If you mean, is he committed to carrying out the change now that it’s the law, yes, I’d call that wholeheartedly embracing the new approach. (“I pledge to you…” seems to signal that pretty clearly.)
So, are our interpretations reasonably close?
JustSaying
I think that I wrote too early and thus was not clear. I do not disagree with anything that you have said. I also believe that the DA will follow the letter of the law. However, it has been my experience that whenever someone with intelligence and enough resources can, they will find ways around rules that are not to their liking. From what I can see from his own statements ( not David’s interpretations ) it would appear to me that DA Reisig would favor a “traditional punishment”approach which in California has centered on the punishment through lengthy incarceration approach with little emphasis on humane conditions let alone rehabilitation. It is largely this approach which created a crisis of such magnitude that the Feds got involved in the first place. I do not think it is unreasonable to suppose that the DA through his actions in the future might try to come as close to his preferred model as possible while remaining within the law. But this is just speculation. We will have to wait and see what he actually does to judge his commitment to the new reality.
[quote][i]”What is the difference between Reisig’s claims and Mr. Nicholson’s? I ask that because you seem to take his word at face value but not Mr. Nicholson’s? I do find it funny that you are willing to take Mr. Reisig’s word but not Mr. Nicholson’s.”[/i][/quote]There are big differences between the news release statement and the Facebook comment. First, Reisig isn’t making any “claims” in his statement. Neither you nor I questioned the content of his statement.
However, these [u]are[/u] claims, actually, I’d say “charges”:[quote][i]”[b]DA Reisig Issues Statement on Realignment As His Office Seeks to Ratchet Up Charges Even More[/b]….has come forward with tougher policies rather than weaker ones….First, AB 109 is changing the way judges are operating. The second is that the DA is compensating by piling on more charges and increasing their offers.”[/i][/quote]These are the claims I’m not accepting “at face value.” It’s [u]your[/u] words I cannot accept at face value, and it’s because you offer nothing to support your charges.
I’m critical that this Facebook comment from some random defense attorney from Placerville somehow fulfills your reporting standards for verification that the DA already has undertaken the changes you’ve claimed:[quote][i]”It appears that the DA intends to fill the jail with long-term inmates rather than alter their charging and prosecuting policies. This was directly expresses to me by a member of that office, a DDA. The word was that offers will go UP rather than DOWN.”[/i][/quote]This may be what Nicholson thinks was said at his lunch date with a DDA; I have no reason to doubt his honesty. But you should get some verification before you report that it’s already happening.[i][quote][i]”I thought I was doing well getting one quote to support what I have been hearing from many different people. What you are going to have to wait on, is to find some examples in the field to this is happening.[/i][/quote][/i] The fact that you fully expect the DA to do something outrageous down the road isn’t enough to charge that it’s already happening.
If “many different people” have told you the DA has issued these instructions and is implementing these policies (and judges are operating differently), quotes from them could have made this more than the “nothing story” that it is so far. Don’t your readers deserve more?
I hope you’ll get to my questions in the first post when you have time. The claims that the state will be watching us and increasing the number of prisoners dumped here if they don’t like the DA’s prosecution numbers don’t seem credible.
In addition, the observation that the purpose of the state law is to force changes in charging practices still is an important issue in this story. There would have been no criticism of the DA without the contention that he’s violating at least the spirit of the new law. It’s obvious that you and Nicholson believe this description of the law’s purpose is true. Where did you get that idea?
[quote][i]”However, it has been my experience that whenever someone with intelligence and enough resources can, they will find ways around rules that are not to their liking.”[/i][/quote]No doubt. I think I understand now what you were getting at. I don’t yet see how this law changes much except reducing the numbers in state pens at the margins. David claims it calls for changing charging and prosecuting practices–the basis for all the criticism about the DA here–but that still needs to be nailed down.
DA Reisig certainly looks like a “tough on crime” kinda guy. Death qualified, three strikes is too many, take down gangs, drugs are bad, maximum imprisonment terms–none of these require getting “around rules.” The kind of “traditional punishment” we both abhor is so built into California’s justice system laws that enforcement officials, judges and others who try to operate at a “softer” level risk public scorn.
Change the laws. As long as our laws call for death for certain crimes, for example, how critical can we be when they’re followed? It’s not “getting around” rules and laws that results in tougher prosecution; it’s following the laws that Californians support. It’s a dilemma, for sure.
JustSaying
Agreed. I think ultimately this is a matter of winning hearts and minds from a more punitive mindset to one that favors rehabilitation and the teaching of healthier behaviors and provision of better opportunities. This will not occur in my lifetime, so in the meantime, I favor an approach that maximizes the rehabilitative aspect of our system, while minimizing the purely punitive aspect. I believe that this perspective puts me at odds with DA Resig.
[quote]dmg: Elaine: see the Nicholson quote.[/quote]
[quote]A defense attorney who practices in Yolo County, Daniel Nicholson, wrote on the Judicial Watch Facebook page that, contrary to what some expect, “It appears that the DA intends to fill the jail with long-term inmates rather than alter their charging and prosecuting policies.”
“This was directly expressed to me by a member of that office, a DDA. The word was that offers will go UP rather than DOWN,” he added…
Public Defender Tracie Olson did not respond to a request to comment on the statement from the District Attorney’s office.[/quote]
And you take Nicholsen’s quote: “It appears that the DA intends to fill the jail with long-term inmates rather than alter their charging and prosecuting policies.” as gospel? Really? Again, you are relying on the hearsay/guess of what will happen of one defense attorney, which amounts to nothing more than courthouse gossip. Tracie Olson wisely kept her mouth shut…
[quote]What is the difference between Reisig’s claims and Mr. Nicholson’s? I ask that because you seem to take his word at face value but not Mr. Nicholson’s? [/quote]
Reisig made a public statement he can be held accountable for. Mr. Nicholson made a vague guess on a Facebook page as to what may happen based on scuttlebutt he heard around the courthouse.
[quote]I do find it funny that you are willing to take Mr. Reisig’s word but not Mr. Nicholson’s. [/quote]
I do find it funny that you are willing to take Mr. Nicholson’s word, rank hearsay, but not Mr. Reisig’s, a direct quote.
[quote]What I suspect to be true is some sort of mixture of both. [/quote]
You just undermined your own argument, predicting Nicholson’s prognostications will not come true as stated… yet you want us to believe what Nicholson said is gospel but Reisig is not being truthful to the public… Good grief!
[quote]I agree with your interpretation that the DA, along with most everybody else in California, finds it regrettable that the state is solving its prison overcrowding by shipping thousands of convicts to sometimes overcrowded county jails. I think people agree that the problems in this “solution” are compounded by sending the responsibility to counties with inadequate funding to do an effective job.
I interpret the DA’s statement as a summary of the law, his views on the potential effects on how justice is administered in Yolo County and his pledge to carry out the changes in a positive way. I see nothing inappropriate in what, essentially, is a status report to his constituents.[/quote]
Bingo!
“David claims it calls for changing charging and prosecuting practices”
I think there is a misunderstanding here, I am not attempting to claim that the legislation will call for changing charging and prosecution practices, but that is going to be one effect of the legislation.
[i][quote]”…there is a misunderstanding here, I am not attempting to claim that the legislation will call for changing charging and prosecution practices, but that is going to be one effect of the legislation.”[/quote][/i]Okay, I’ll bite; why do you say this just is a misunderstanding about what you’ve written?
(Actually, I’d half-way expected you to pop back with Sec. 42a VI Sub. 00067 from the law, a citation requiring the counties “to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues”–thereby, justifying the criticism you’ve heaped on the DA for doing the opposite of what the law actually requires.) Instead, you say “never mind.” And, play the “you misunderstood me” card.
At this point, it’s probably futile to try to advance this conversation, but guess I’m just a glutton for punishment, as they say. Probably you’re not attempting to make a point on tense (“will call” vs. “call”).
So, I’ll assume that your present point is that your observations were intended as and should have been accepted as simple musings about the unspecified (but intended) consequences you forecast as the new state law is implemented. But, that really hard to accept, given the outright contrary statements you wrote:[quote][i]”…the [u]goals of the state law are to force the counties…to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues.[/u] Prior to AB 109, there was no cost to the counties for having stiffer charging policies. Should (Yolo’s high incarceration rate) continue, the state will be monitoring Yolo County, and forcing them to make changes or take on even more inmates.”[/i][/quote]Are you saying that even one of these points is true? You’ve offered nothing but your own claim that they’re factual. Now, you sort of acknowledge that you don’t claim any one is statements is true.
However, without your claims about the “goals of the law” being designed “to force the counties” to reduce their charging and prosecution aggressiveness, you lose your ability to criticize DA Reisig for violating the law’s intentions and, thereby, jeopardizing our county by bringing the state down on us.
What I think has happened here is that you–facing positive news to report about the DA’s statement–have made up things that enable your smears of Reisig seem credible. The Nicholson Facebook fig leaf ends up without merit as well since it relies on the same reduced charging fantasy that you’ve perpetuated.
You must analyze every Judicial Watch story possibility for its potential to discredit Reisig, every positive event as requiring added spin to turn it negative. Since you start with this assumption, it’s not surprising you’re able to develop a way to criticize no matter what contortions it requires.
I’ve come to expect that every Judicial Watch story you do with a Reisig connection will be packed with illogical stretches, unsupportable contentions, missing contrary facts and even things that aren’t true. As you might guess, I find it easy to analyze them the way I expect they’ll be.
It’s frustrating that my hopes to enlighten you along these lines always are unsuccessful. I’m convinced that taking a different approach would strengthen your Judicial Watch endeavor. But, as you say, “never mind.”
I feel like we are talking past each other. I will blame myself for this oversight.
I wrote: “I am not attempting to claim that the legislation will call for changing charging and prosecution practices, but that is going to be one effect of the legislation.”
You wrote: “Actually, I’d half-way expected you to pop back with Sec. 42a VI Sub. 00067 from the law, a citation requiring the counties “to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues”–thereby, justifying the criticism you’ve heaped on the DA for doing the opposite of what the law actually requires.”
While I did not cite chapter and verse, we’re pretty much saying the same thing.
Look, it’s obvious what will have to happen here. The state is going to push back people into counties, filling up the local jails. So the local jails will not be able to take on more people.
At that point you have two choice – you either release people randomly and hope for the best, or eventually you pick and choose who to charge and with what crime. Otherwise there is no more room at the inn. So yes, that is a logistical point that will necessitate changing charging policies. I believe that was one of the goals of the law.
What Reisig is doing, at least according to those actually on the ground is the opposite, he’s trying to charge crimes above the AB 109 threshold so they stick in prison.
Whether you agree with me or not, I hope we can at least be on the same page as to what I was trying to say.
Thank you. I’ll try to do the same.[quote][i][u]You said[/u]:”…the goals of the state law are to force the counties, which are tasked with prosecuting these individuals to begin with, to adjust their charging policies to deal with the logistical issues.”
[u]I said[/u]: “Original source, please. Links? Thank you.”[/i][/quote]I asked this because it is not what anything else I’d read suggested was a goal, let alone [u]the[/u] goals. You’ve still provided no source that a reduction in enforcement, charging or sentencing is a purpose of the law.
I asked for the basis for your goal claim because I really don’t know and wanted to remain open to the prospect that you were’t just manufacturing the laws’ goals for convince in order to claim Reisig was in violation of something.
Eventually, after not providing any source or justification, you try the tack “I am not attempting to claim that the legislation will call for changing charging and prosecution practices” only to switch back now to “I believe that was one of the goals of the law.” If you again know this to be either the goals or one of the goals, I again ask of you: “”Original source, please.”
Although Andrew T. has a harsher view of your claim, I was willing to keep open the possibility that you could support it (“I’d half-way expected you to pop back with….”) but you have not even tried. We aren’t “pretty much saying the same thing.”
I’m asking you for the source of what I now have to conclude is an inaccurate assumption about the law on your part. That’s all. It would be easier to take the next leap that the DA is in violation.
[quote][i]What Reisig is doing, at least according to those actually on the ground is the opposite, he’s trying to charge crimes above the AB 109 threshold so they stick in prison. Whether you agree with me or not, I hope we can at least be on the same page as to what I was trying to say.[/i][/quote]Yike! So, [u]this[/u] is what you’re trying to say? I just wish you could have gotten around to saying it before now.
Now that you’ve clarified, let me try to summarize:
1. So, this story is supposed to be about how Reisig is gaming the AB 109 realignment in order to ship people convicted in the future to state penitentiaries when they should be doing their time in the county jail.
2. Reisig supposedly has a practice of over-charging the cases he’s been pursuing since he became DA. Yet, somehow, he supposedly is able to take (and now [u]is[/u] taking) this standard practice to a new level now that AB 109 threatens something near Woodland.
3. Reisig’s objective, hard as it might be to believe, supposedly is to save money for the county treasury and to free up jail cells in order to house “gang members” for their first-strike incarcerations.
4. Reisig supposedly is accomplishing this by charging non-violent offenders with violent crimes, non-serious crimes as serious ones and/or non-sex-crimes as sex offenses.
5. Although Reisig thinks he’s devised a perfect, foolproof plan to conduct a fraudulent miscarriage of Yolo justice over the next few years, it’s supposedly all coming undone this week–thanks to a blabbermouth DDA source, a Facebook-posting defense attorney and a pile of Judicial Watch innuendo (albeit non-specific and unsupported).
That is clear that that you think Reisig purposely is unfairly charging lower-level accused with crimes that exceed the “AB 109 threshold so they stick in prison” to be the best “additional information drop” I’ve seen in the [u]Vanguard[/u] so far.
It moves an illogical, confusing hit piece on the DA up the scale where it finally makes all the sense in the world–once we know it’s really about his recently undertaken criminal enterprise…”according to those actually on the ground.” I just wish you had patience to wait to publish until you had tracked down a little proof.
[quote]I believe that was one of the goals of the law. [/quote]
Proof please? Goals are stated in the legislative notes, so it is possible to verify the legislature’s thinking on the issue. I suspect you will never find what you are looking for… this was a fiscal issue pure and simple is my guess…
“I just wish you could have gotten around to saying it before now. “
And I wish I had slept last week and not had the flu. I think I said it, but obviously we did not communicate well.