Recently we reconnected with a mother whose son was sentenced to 35 years to life. It was a case we covered a few years ago, where her son and others were convicted of attempted murder after they fired on what turned out to be an uninhabited dwelling in Woodland.
By the time the DA added gang and gun enhancements, her son received the life sentence where he won’t even be eligible for parole until he’s served 85 percent of the time, and then only if a parole board – notoriously stingy, especially with gang cases – approves his release.
She acknowledges that what he did was extremely dangerous, not to mention stupid. She agrees he needed to be punished for what he did. But she also points out that the gang charges were somewhat suspect – he had no criminal record and no gang tattoos.
We have focused much of our efforts, and rightly so, on people who are factually innocent of crimes – and yet have been convicted. But for many in the criminal justice system, a bigger problem is people who have been either overcharged or locked up for a disproportionate amount of time.
In the case above, it is tricky. There are those who will argue, and rightly so, that the person did not know that the individual they were targeting was not home and it was therefore sheer luck that no one was hurt. I agree with that assessment.
At the same time, no one was hurt and, therefore, the sentence seems excessive. Why are we arguing that someone who does something very stupid at the age of 20 should be effectively incarcerated for the rest of his life? At the very least. he should get a chance to make amends, and be given a second chance to become a productive member of society.
These are the kinds of cases that are very tricky – firing guns is extremely dangerous, and finding a way to give some of these kids a second chance carries some risk.
But in a lot of ways our charging and sentencing policies do not make a lot of sense to begin with. We end up sentencing people more as they get older and commit additional crimes. There is a logic to that – we tend to go easier on people who have been convicted of fewer crimes, assuming that those who repeatedly commit crimes are more likely to continue to do so.
The research shows that criminal activity actually peaks relatively early in life and, as individuals age, they commit fewer crimes and the crimes they commit tend to be less violent. The truly dangerous and unrepentant career criminals are relatively rare.
Not only are older people much less likely to commit further crimes, the cost to incarcerate them goes up as they require more health care.
In recent years we have seen a string of reforms to change the way we handle criminal justice issues. Many of these reforms have focused on non-violent offenders. For instance, AB 109 has pushed non-violent offenders out of the prison system and into local custody. Proposition 47 has reduced drug possession and petty theft in most cases to misdemeanors.
Proposition 36 has reduced non-violent third strike offenses to second strikes – which still entails a good amount of prison time, as a second strike offense doubles the sentence. However, it is better than 25 to life for things like petty theft.
California voted against eliminating the death penalty back in 2012, but that measure is back on the ballot in the form of Proposition 62. This comes amid national polling showing that, for the first time, a majority are opposed to capital punishment.
California has some other criminal justice reforms on the ballot as well – that includes a measure that would legalize marijuana and an interesting measure, Proposition 57, that would make parole easier to obtain.
The Yolo County Board of Supervisors recently voted to oppose Prop. 57, citing the number of reforms that have already occurred. I am not sure why this is deemed so risky, as all it does is support “increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.”
The former provision, really isn’t going to change things that much, as a parole board still has to approve the release.
Even Jim Provenza, generally liberal, opposed the measure, arguing, “This opens the way for violent offenders to be released into the community by a parole board with no accountability to anyone. It’s purported to apply just to nonviolent crimes but that’s based on a misunderstanding of the law. Under this, you can include violent felons in the people eligible for early parole.”
Yolo County DA Jeff Reisig argued that it would make a number of people eligible for parole who were dangerous, but everyone seems to ignore the fact that parole boards are extremely reluctant to parole violent individuals.
“There is no accountability built into this constitutional amendment,” Mr. Provenza said. “It lets the unelected parole board decide who to release.”
But again, he ignores just how difficult it is to get a parole board to grant release, and there are checks on the ability of parole boards to release prisoners anyway.
The other part of Prop. 57 is it ends the direct file system by the DA – they would have to petition the judge to do so. We have seen a number of cases where young teens get gang charges put on them to ensure they would be tried as adults – in some cases they ended up having those charges dropped or getting acquitted by a jury, and ended up back in the juvenile system – but not until after six months to a year in custody for kids as young as 14 and 15.
Prop. 57 may end up being a step too far for voters. We will see what happens with Prop. 57, Prop. 62, Prop 66. (which is the opposite of Prop. 62) and Prop. 64.
The key question is can we be safe and keep crime near historically low levels, without reflexively locking people away well before the need?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I can see ways in which over charging may actually make us less safe. I believe that the practice of over charging has the possibility of reinforcing a basic lack of respect for our judicial system.
Respect for the system is part of the reason that people adhere to our laws at all. When respect is lost, people will tend to not obey the laws that they do not see as protecting them or even as pertinent to them. This is not just true in our inner cities, but is equally true in some rural areas. I am of course thinking of the Bundy led occupation of federal land as a recent example. However, this attitude is far more widespread. I grew up in a rural setting in which this attitude was common. On a recent rafting trip, I heard expressed by the guides the attitude that since the federal government was not living up to their expectations of appropriate land management, they had the right to break the laws as they saw fit.
For me, it is one prime responsibility of those to whom we cede power, our police, our courts, and our jails and prison system to create and maintain a system worthy of respect of our citizens. One in which all are truly equal under the law. Over charging does not in my opinion inspire this kind of respect.
” I believe that the practice of over charging has the possibility of reinforcing a basic lack of respect for our judicial system.”
“When respect is lost, people will tend to not obey the laws that they do not see as protecting them or even as pertinent to them.”
These are important statements. I’d say they are more than beliefs; they are facts. I’d further say that we have already gone way too far down this road and are doing little to slow down or turn back.
I’ll be voting in favor of all the California propositions that reduce government power. Maybe they are not all well written or some will have unintended consequences, but we’ve erred in the opposite direction too far and for too long.
This article is all over the place. It doesn’t make rational points. We know that liberals follow thier bleading heart and progressives are always on the look out for a cause… and the two of them together manufacture victim causes in an endless stream… but the victims of crime are real victims. And those that commit crimes are not victims.
I am fine with more leniency for victim-less crime. But there is no way we should be forced to accept more crime just because liberal progressives need another hobby.
there are at least as many criminals on the other side of the bars, F, and now it is being known about and publicized…
on overcharging cases… yolo county prides itself in doing so.
2011 vanguard article:
Agree that consistent application of the law is very important. There is no good reason IMHO for the same crime to be charged differently from county-to-county.
The argument “Not only are older people much less likely to commit further crimes, the cost to incarcerate them goes up as they require more health care.” is fallacious as society generally pays for their healthcare when they are released and for many it may be cheaper to treat them in prison as opposed to paying for them through Medi-Cal.
RE Proposition 57: While it says “nonviolent” there are some genuine concerns about the types of crimes committed.
Quielo says: “The argument “Not only are older people much less likely to commit further crimes, the cost to incarcerate them goes up as they require more health care.” is fallacious as society generally pays for their healthcare when they are released and for many it may be cheaper to treat them in prison as opposed to paying for them through Medi-Cal.”
This is false.
1. It is well-researched by numerous studies and the simple facts as collected by agencies such as the FBI and Bureau of Justice statistics that both criminal arrests and general recidivism goes down after age forty.
2. The costs of medical treatment for California inmates is much higher inside than out of prison – not because of the MediCal costs, but because of what is known as the “guarding costs.” In addition, inmates have generally higher medical morbidity than similar adults in the community including diabetes, hepatitis, and multiple other chronic conditions. We are obliged to provide community standard of care for our inmates so the costs are not less.
3. You must also consider costs for mental health treatment. Prisons and jails typically have many mentally ill inmates for whom costs are high. California currently has >35,000 inmates in our mental health system, of whom >7,500 suffer from serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression.
Does anyone recall when the mental hospitals, like Napa were closed down and many mentally ill were released….many had no where to go..
But did the crime rate skyrocket? not on the truly violent crimes….
And, most of the lifers cannot live outside without some real assistance..
I know a nice young man in his mid-40s who spent most of the last 25 years behind bars….not a single tiny infraction ever….just days before release from a halfway house, he was back in jail…now prison….and he didn’t even do anything wrong but be in the wrong place when a cop drove by….recently…in the last few months…
“The costs of medical treatment for California inmates is much higher inside than out of prison” Do you have some evidence for that statement? Aged inmates are not going to get a job with benefits in most cases so they will be a burden either way.
on prop 57 – i just don’t get the bos position. parole boards aren’t soft on crime, they aren’t wont to release violent criminals.
hmmmm.. .interesting article, thank you.
Parole boards wouldn’t have a job if there were not many hundreds of thousands of innocent people in US prisons….
Follow the money, learn the truth
would someone who has more time than me please share the statistics again, about what % of the US population is behind bars? prison, jails, half way houses, probation? and also compare to the rest of the countries on this planet?
So you don’t know “about what % of the US population is behind bars?”
But you do know “many hundreds of thousands of innocent people in US prisons”
So how is it that you don’t know how many people are in prison but you do know how many are innocent?
because it has been a while since I’ve seen the statistics….and the reports..
and, here is the real stumper….if this is the best country on this planet, why is a much higher % of this population incarcerated than most any other country on this planet?
simple logic will allow one to deduce that many many innocents are behind bars…
of course, have you studied logic, read Plato, looked for things that do not make sense… or were you of the generation that drank their toxic water and behaved in school?
this is not my area of expertise, but the other day I met a woman who was being released from a halfway house…she said it was full of elderly women who were assistants to doctors and health professionals, and then the medicare fraud police went after their bosses, who got left on the hook?
“simple logic will allow one to deduce that many many innocents are behind bars…”
Not following at all. Can you explain?
“here is the real stumper….if this is the best country on this planet, why is a much higher % of this population incarcerated than most any other country on this planet?”
The most simple of questions with a very simple answer. People are more free here and given freedom many will act badly.
that answer ignores the much higher incarceration rate for other similar democracies with similar freedoms.
But with different demographics. However as immigration rises so has their incarceration rate.
It only took me the time it took, back when I watched TV, to see one show where one person who was killed for a crime he didn’t commit was later posthumously exonerated,
to never ever find anyone guilty of a thing….
I have very very high levels of doubt, and I am way more reasonable, than many others…
Studies have shown that everybody on the planet earth is convinced they are “way more reasonable, than many others”
I know for a fact that I’m “way more reasonable, than many others”, just ask me.
checks and balances only exist in fairy tales….or Judge Judy
Judge Judy is sole arbiter.
PS> some are violent because they were attacked or were trying to save someone else…and if one believes a police report of who is violent or not, well, if that is the only evidence I wouldn’t believe it …not after my life experiences…
the only ones who should fear are the crooked cops who put someone innocent behind bars, or the crooked prosecutors who wanted their bonus regardless of the fact of knowing the person was innocent …
otherwise, even most mass murderers of recent years were on toxic combos of psycho drugs…if one was not psycho before them, those could make one psycho…
Can you list even ONE prosecutor who get a “bonus” based on convictions?
“or the crooked prosecutors who wanted their bonus”
Yeah. Here’s one of many:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2011/03/colorado-district-attorney-offers-cash-bonuses-for-convictions.html
Oink!
Good find however it is based on ” conviction rates” rather than number of convictions and highly unusual. I will readily admit that prosecutors have a close eye on their win rates for other reasons though that generally manifests as plea bargains and declining to persecute. Prosecutors are also fond of adding numerous unsupported charges to the front end to pressure defendants to settle.