Big prisoner release plan
Schwarzenegger proposing to free 22,000 low-risk offenders early

By Andy Furillo - afurillo@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PST Friday, December 21, 2007

In what may be the largest early release of inmates in U.S. history, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is proposing to open the prison gates next year for some 22,000 low-risk offenders.

According to details of a budget proposal made available to The Bee, the administration will ask the Legislature to authorize the release of certain non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offenders who are in the final 20 months of their terms.

The proposal would cut the prison population by 22,159 inmates and save the cash-strapped state an estimated $256 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1 and more than $780 million through June 30, 2010. The proposal also calls for a reduction of more than 4,000 prison jobs, most of them involving correctional officers.

A gubernatorial spokesman said no final decisions had been made.

The administration, which is looking at across-the-board budget cuts to stem a budget deficit pegged as high as $14 billion, is looking for more savings by shifting lower-risk parolees into what officials describe as a "summary" parole system. Such a shift also would require legislative approval.

Under "summary" parole, offenders would remain on supervised release and would still be subject to searches by local law enforcement at any time, but they would not be returned to prison on technical violations. It would take a new crime prosecuted by local law enforcement officials to return an offender to prison.

A summary parole system t would save the state an estimated $98 million in the 2008-09 fiscal year and $329 million through 2009-10. The number of job cuts in the parole proposal would hit 1,660.

Gubernatorial spokesman Adam Mendelsohn declined to confirm the proposal outlined to The Bee but reaffirmed the administration's belief that all departments need to cut spending by 10 percent next year. The corrections budget is $9.9 billion.

Schwarzenegger "has not made any decisions" on where the cuts will take place, Mendelsohn said, including whether they will involve early release of inmates or staff layoffs.

"He has not made any final determination on what his January budget will look like, but there are many, many scenarios that have been presented to the governor, and he is working extremely hard to figure out how we manage this budget situation through cuts and reduced spending," Mendelsohn said.

In a system where spending is driven by population and labor costs, the proposal outlined Thursday would not cut any of the prison department's bond funding, including spending under Assembly Bill 900, the $7.9 billion prison package. Nor would it affect expenditures of the federal medical receiver, who is in charge of $1.5 billion of the corrections budget.

Spending for the Corrections Standards Authority and the Division of Juvenile Justice also would be excluded from the proposed cuts.

UC Berkeley law professor and corrections expert Franklin Zimring said that in raw numbers, "I don't know of any" other releases across the country that would match what Schwarzenegger's administration is proposing.

But he said the proposed 13 percent cut in the prison population � which stood at 172,079 as of Dec. 12 � would be on par with the results of changes in parole policy that Gov. Ronald Reagan imposed in the early 1970s.

"This could be an extraordinarily interesting experiment," Zimring said. "The nice thing about having a Republican governor do it is that I don't think there is going to be a firestorm."

"Let's see if it plays as a huge story," Zimring added.

Conservatives and victims-rights groups indicated Thursday that they will be stoking the fires of opposition to a plan they say poses a massive public safety threat.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, accused Schwarzenegger of "running with his tails between his legs" from the federal three-judge court that is considering legal motions to cap the state prison population.

Spitzer said the administration is "hell bent" on cutting the prison population, as demonstrated by recent decisions to press parole agents to discharge low-risk offenders if they stay clean for a year.

"You can guarantee that we'll be out and yelling against this," said Nina Salarno Ashford, an executive board member of Crime Victims United of California.

Spokesmen for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which represents the lion's share of employees who would be faced with layoffs, said the number of proposed staffing cuts resembles the union's figures on the number of vacancies throughout the department.

The CCPOA has sided with inmates-rights' lawyers on the motions to cap the prison population. But its leaders expressed fear Thursday that the releases could lead to a crime wave.

"It's very tragic," union spokesman Lance Corcoran said. "It's the exact opposite direction that the state needs to go."

The proposal drew a positive reaction from Barry Krisberg, president of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

He presented a study in Sacramento earlier this year saying that early release programs combined with community-based programs can result in lower crime rates.

"This seems to me to be a prudent proposal," Krisberg said. "It would be better if it were done in the context of comprehensive sentencing reform rather than in just an ad-hoc form that will go forward for a while.

"But there's no question that reducing the prison population will improve things and help the management of the system."

At what point is an executive decision for early release a violation of the separation of powers? The judicial branch makes a decision, imposes a punishment, and then the executive branch disregards it for political/budgeting purposes.

The public understands that this shows tremendous disrespect for the rule of law. The decision for early release, if made, is motivated by a broad desire to save money. The individual sentence, on the other hand, was a thoughtful, focused decision based on the person before the court.

Over the last few years, politicians have begun to believe that the prison population is merely a moveable product that can be increased or decreased as needed for budget purposes. That is a fundamentally unconstitutional approach to governing. It also will inevitably result in a rising crime rate and elections that throw out the politicians who played with the safety of citizens.

And, each time, the politicians chant that the policy is focused only on "nonviolent" crimes. As if victims of theft, burglary, drug dealing, criminal mischief, and the many other property and drug crimes don't really have any need for seeing the criminal punished as promised. Last time I checked, we hadn't adopted some utilitarian approach to punishment, allowing it to shift daily, like the stock market, depending on the whims of politicians.

Next December let's run all 22,000 names in NCIC and the CCIC (or whatever moniker they have for it) and see how many new victims there are and the cumulative cost to them.

They'll be back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
At what point is an executive decision for early release a violation of the separation of powers? The judicial branch makes a decision, imposes a punishment, and then the executive branch disregards it for political/budgeting purposes.

---

If you view punishment as law enforcement, then I suppose it could be argued that the executive power to grant clemency, or early release, is a proper example of the balance of powers, allowing the executive to counter abuses by the legislature or the courts.

That said, while I think such a move may do no violence to the Constitution, a wholesale release of convicted criminals on the mere basis of their being non-violent seems to overemphasize fiscal concerns as compared to the conerns of justice. While the damage done by violent criminals is certainly greater, the damage done by property offenders is not minimal.

quote:

---

According to details of a budget proposal made available to The Bee, the administration will ask the Legislature to authorize the release of certain non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offenders who are in the final 20 months of their terms.

---

Admittedly, newspapers are not a great place to get details, but the above quote from the article seems to suggest that the Governator could be asked for a retroactive change in the way a sentence otherwise should have been served. A sort of wholesale clemency without review of specific facts. That's not the same as granting clemency after an individualized review.

what difference does it make what you call it??

If they do not have the money, then they do not have the money.

What do you expect them to do? States are REQUIRED to have balanced budgets and if the money isn't there, and the people do not authorize a tax increase, then you have to start cutting spending. By making each department cut an equal percentage, that spreads the pain around evenly.

Why does each department have to cut an equal percentage? You assume that all departments are equally valuable (and necessary!) to society, and that all departments are equally efficient with their funding.

RTC, if you do not believe that a conviction and sentence that has been obtained should be carried out, then there is serious reason to doubt that you work in the field of prosecution. Your reply seems to suggest that there is no finality nor predictability required to enforce a judgment.

Setting aside whatever liberal attitudes you may have about punishment, shouldn't the judicial branch of government, having set a punishment, be accorded the same respect that is given to the legislative branch (by enforcing the law as written) and the executive branch (by carrying out the administrative wishes of the governor or president)? You seem to suggest that the judicial branch's punishment in individual cases is a mere recommendation subject to alteration by the executive and legislative branches. I don't read the constitution to say that.

Yes, the executive branch may make clemency decision in individual cases, but only one at a time. We saw what a fraud on the government it was for the Governor of Illinois (shortly before being indicted) to offer wholesale clemency to an entire class of criminals (murderers). We also have seen what a disaster it was for the Texas Legislature to reduce the time being served by criminals merely to address a budget shortfall. The rise in crime more than overshot any alleged savings.

So, yes, it does matter what we call it.

Punishment ranges are influenced by a sort of inflation... it is almost always easier and politically safer for lawmakers to vote to increase penalties than lower them.

It is interesting that the legislature would rather save money by releasing proven criminals than by reducing the punishment ranges for crimes not yet committed.

Reducing the punishment for future crimes would at least be a democratic form of decision-making. It would be subject to debate and criminals and citizens could at least be on notice as to the price of crime. Such informed decision-making was used in Texas back in the early 1990's to rewrite the Penal Code. Since then, some members of the Legislature have abandoned that approach for mere tinkering to meet budgetary goals. It even has a motto worthy of Madison Avenue: "Smart on Crime." Sad.

It is a vicious cycle. Early releases lead to crime wave which leads to more and longer sentences which lead to need for more releases.

I am not sure democratically derived shorter sentences or "administrative" releases would provide anything but better feelings about how we got where we are. But, it would perhaps be the more honorable way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RTC:
what difference does it make what you call it??

If they do not have the money, then they do not have the money.

What do you expect them to do? States are REQUIRED to have balanced budgets and if the money isn't there, and the people do not authorize a tax increase, then you have to start cutting spending. By making each department cut an equal percentage, that spreads the pain around evenly.

---

I vote we suggest to send all the released convicts to Mr. RTC's neighborhood.

In the spirit of Christmas, of course.

Jeez, RTC is about the only person I can think of, other than the crooks themselves, who is happy more criminals are being released early. What is wrong with this picture?

Who said anything about being happy with this situation? All I am trying to say is that fiscal concerns are just as legitimate as any of the other concerns that have been expressed here.

If the state does not have enough money to incarcerate these individuals, what do you expect them to do?

I am not the guy who is reporting this, and I am certainly not the guy that caused this problem. All I did was post a newsworthy article.

If there is no money then there is no money. Grousing about it isn't going to make it any better. These are serious problems and they need to be dealt with in a serious fashion.

Money for prisons is just as legitimate as money for schools, hospitals, roads, fire, and all the other services that we expect our government to be able to provide for us. But if the money is not there, then what do you expect the state to do???

What is your solution?

Taking the money from some other program and putting it into your's is not a solution because the people whose programs that you want to cut want their money just as badly as you want your's.

So, if you are governor in California, what would you do, seeing how the people will not vote to raise their taxes???

I would honor the law and enforce the judgments properly executed in a court of law. I would not pretend that I could disregard them because it costs money. And I would not engage in the sophistic argument that other things cost money, too.

When the Legislative branch set the punishment range, and the Judicial branch chose a punishment, then the Executive branch is obligated to carry it out. Altering that formula after the fact is the sort of violation of the separation of powers that is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Two sessions ago, Rep. Jerry Madden attempted to change the punishment for over 50,000 pending felony probationers. His bill passed the Legislature, under the guise of saving Texas taxpayers money. Governor Perry vetoed the bill, arguing that the retroactive change of the law was unsafe and inappropriate. Two years later, another bill passed. That bill made some of the same changes, but they were applied prospectively. That bill, while not favored by conservatives, was not vetoed.

RTC, when you acknowledge your identity, then you can say with some credibility whether or not you are merely reporting the news or promoting it. Until then, your posturing as a neutral prosecutor will be viewed as mere provocative postings.

The legislative process sometimes seems like it is nothing more than a mechanism for deciding who gets money. "Entitlements," "earmarks," and the like are the coin of the realm for politicians. In that framework, politicians often present false choices to their constituents -- "we have to let people go because we can't pay for it" being just one example.

The reality is that if crime was the #1 priority of voters, it would be the #1 priority of the politicians who dole out tax dollars. But that is not the case right now. As long as education, health care, transportation, and other issues determine who gets elected, crime and public safety will continue to be ignored, or worse -- politicians will rob Peter (public safety) to pay Paul (whatever voters think is more important).

Viewed in this framework, these issues no longer become liberal vs. conservative ones for politicians, but more like incumbent vs. unemployed -- it's the facts of life for them. Therefore, politicians of both stripes will generally try to get away with doing the bare minimum on crime and public safety so that they can curry favor with voters on other "hot" issues, whether that be "reforming" a scandal-plagued agency like TYC or feeding the never-satisfied beast that social welfare programs have become.

As I've said before -- prosecutors and law enforcement are oftentimes victims of their own success.

Now ain't that a bitch?

Shannon, true enough. But even more true when prosecutors and law enforcement remain silent.

quote:

---

RTC, when you acknowledge your identity, then you can say with some credibility whether or not you are merely reporting the news or promoting it.

---

JB - Now why would I go ahead and do that? I am rather new at my job and the last thing that I need is someone like you calling my boss and complaining that my postings here don't toe the TDCAA party line.

It is really unfair of you to say this. If I was 'rah-rah' all the way with you, you wouldn't have any problems with what I say, even though there is no such a person as a "neutral" person. Everyone here has an opinion on something one way or the other, while some might be unsure temporarily.

Thank goodness I don't have to worry about getting on one of those lists that J. Edgar was so fond of making. Or do I??

The bottom line, folks, is that if there are no consequences to criminal conduct, regardless of the level of seriousness,what is the point of what we do as prosecutors? In the eyes of the criminal community, we become a bothersome irrelevancy.

RTC, although I suspect you already know this from your work at the ACLU, you will find that prosecutors tend to judge people based on their backgrounds and characters. Being in the business of criminal law, we are suspicious of those people who offer opinions without letting anyone evaluate the opinion-giver.

A quick search in criminal case law would show you that anonymous informants have virtually no credibility. Their words must be corroborated. For their testimony to be used in court, their identity must be revealed. That is so that the jury can see them, listen to them, hear about their background and character, and form an opinion about credibility.

The blog world has developed this sort of anonymous poster (AP). The AP, like you Hoover, is freed from the normal social restraints that help focus comments onto truthful statements. And, as you must also know Mr. Grassy Knoll, if there are no consequences to postings, whether they be accusations, claims or just general rants, then why should there be any weight given their presence?

Contrary to your claim, there are no TDCAA approved opinions. And I seriously doubt you believe we would tattle to your boss for posting your opinions. I suspect you more rightly fear that your boss, if your boss were actually a prosecutor, would wonder why you are anonymously posting.

So, prosecutor or not, how about just starting the new year with a resolution to let people know something about you? Like your true identity, Mr. RTC Hoover Grassy Knoll aka AP (but not the legendary A.P.).

[This message was edited by JB on 12-26-07 at .]