This just came out in the Sacramento Bee. Am headed off to teach shortly so my commentary will have to wait until later.
But suffice it to say that there is so much about every piece of this that is so, so fraught with politics not common sense.
Saying it was a “formula for disaster,” a Sacramento judge today blocked the Sheriff’s Department from granting any more early releases to inmates it is holding in the county’s jail facilities.
Sheriff’s officials began the releases last week in response to a bill passed last year and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that will have the effect of reducing the state prison population by about 6,300 inmates, mostly through parole changes.
In his ruling today, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren E. McMaster granted a temporary restraining order that was requested by the deputy sheriff’s union. McMaster said in his two-page written ruling that the new state law only applies to state prisoners, not county jail inmates. The judge set a March 3 hearing date for the union’s request for a preliminary injunction.
The union’s lawyer, David P. Mastagni, argued in a hearing today that the release of the estimated 200 inmates since Jan. 25 before their previously-set release dates, combined with the layoffs of 122 sheriff’s deputies since August, posed a public safety problem for the county.
McMaster agreed.
“Releasing inmates early by the application of a law intended only for those in the state prison population at the same time that deputies in the field are being substantially reduced is a formula for disaster,” McMaster wrote.
UPDATE: I wrote the above in something of a rush, so let me state more clearly why I think this is a perplexing decision.
The law that kicked in at the first of last month, plainly states that some of the law’s new credits that will shave days off a prison inmate’s sentence, also apply to jails> To wit:
This bill would also revise the time credits for certain prisoners confined or committed to a county jail or other specified facilities, as provided.
You can read it yourself.
Just to be sure, I spoke to the CDCR’s main spokesperson, Gordon Hinkle, the other day and he said that, yes, the new law, which among other things, expanded the credits an inmate would receive for time he or she had spent in jail prior to conviction, also applied to jails. BUT—and this is crucial—it doesn’t apply retroactively.
This lack of retroactivity is why not one single prison inmate has been released early under the program. Not one. They still have to qualify.
However, as Andrew Blankstein and Richard Winton report, a large number of the state’s county sheriffs have elected to apply the new law retroactively anyway. They say they have done so on the advice of counsel. Maybe yes, OR maybe they wanted to ease some jail overcrowding, and took the opportunity to do so, while getting to complain that the Big Bad State made them do it. I don’t know. But whatever the case, several counties have dumped hundreds of prisoners out early.
Interestingly, the sheriff overseeing the largest county jail system in the California—namely LA’s Sheriff Lee Baca—does not thing the law requires him to retroactively start dumping inmates, as he told Blankstein and Winton. ( In fact, Baca didn’t the law applied to him at all.)
So were the jails’ early inmate releases really legally necessary? No. It doesn’t seem so.
But does the earned time off one’s sentence principle also apply to jails?
Despite what the judge has ruled, I don’t see how the llaw can be read otherwise.
God bless Judge McMaster. This is a victory for common sense, the rule of law, and public safety.
The damn Prison Industrial Complex and their draconian ways, I need to give them my vitriol !!!!!!!!
Legislating from the bench.
What is it that you object to, Celeste?
Actually, the judge is not legislating but doing the opposite. He’s doing what a judge should do by directing the county to obey existing legislation and laws unaffected by court orders in a different jurisdiction.
Existing legislation called for the inmates to be released. The state legislature passed it, and the Governor signed it into law. That’s how laws are made, Woody, not by activist judges and police that influence them. This judge and the sheriffs union that’s pulling his strings are making the laws on their own, bypassing laws passed by representatives of the people. There’s no point in having a representative government if judges are just going to bypass laws voted for by the people or their representatives. If those in power start tearing the system apart at the top, you can bet those at the bottom will follow suit.
Rob, I’m not going to argue with you if you can’t see the problem correctly. The county is not following any law or any court ruling. It’s taken a ruling on a state issue by an activist court and applied it on a county basis. The judge in this article is telling the county to stick to its business and laws and to let the state worry about itself.
The law was directed at the release of state inmates, not county inmates. No law was bypassed, nice try.
What is the actual language of the state law that was passed? If it clearly says only state inmates apply to it, then why is this judge using words like “formula for disaster”? Can’t he just quote the law verbatim? He’s using opinionated words to justify his ruling, instead of just quoting the law. I’ll bet you one of Sure Fire’s sprinkled donuts that the law just fails to actually differentiate county inmates from state inmates (although intended to include all inmates), and this activist judge and his puppeteer cop outfit are taking advantage of the loophole.
You guys are absolutely ridiculous. Of course the courts are overruling the legislature. For some reason every single time you disagree with a ruling it’s horrible judicial activism and every single time you agree with it, it’s suddenly proper judging. I don’t know whether you genuinely can’t see that or you are so consumed with your battle with liberals, so convinced that never giving ground is the key to political victory, that you’re willing to lie to a bunch of strangers on the internet again and again. Either way, it’s depressing.
You know people are taking marching orders when they’re suddenly outraged about a particular aspect of a law, months or years after it was passed, and all at the same time. I can just picture cops having a meeting before hitting the streets, going over the day’s political p.r. talking points. I would think it’s none of my business if it wasn’t for the fact that we’re paying their salary. Hey, maybe that’s why there’s so many criminals out there. Maybe our public servants need to spend more time discussing crime trends and less time getting their political ducks in order.
Rob Thomas says:
This judge and the sheriffs union that’s pulling his strings are making the laws on their own,
***********************
Another anti-union post by Mr. Thomas.
If those in power start tearing the system apart at the top, you can bet those at the bottom will follow suit.
***********************
More right wing tea bagger rhetoric.
He’s using opinionated words to justify his ruling, instead of just quoting the law.
************************
Still more of the same language of a tea bagger. They want the laws read verbatim instead of allowing progressive ideas and translations. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin would be proud of Mr. Thomas.
Well said, Mavis.
Read the law, it applied to the “state prison inmates” not county jail inmates. Robbie is wrong as usual and you whiners need to get a life.
The counties are doing it to save money and maybe figure they’ll need room for the released state inmates who violate and don’t get sent anywhere but to them, is that so hard to figure out?
Post the lie Mavis and when you can’t do that maybe you should just get your head out of your ass befiore you post.
Here’s a link to chew on.
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-inmate-release,0,2108811.story
By the way Mavis, it’s got nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it has to do with what the law says as compared to the ramblings of an idiot.
Regarding your update, Celeste…. Great, sheriffs who are supposed to enforce the laws are intentionally breaking them with early releases. Judges who were ruling on a case invovling state prisons only decided to expand it to facilities not part of or represented at the hearings. If you go along with that, you sure have a strange concept of justice.
“Great, sheriffs who are supposed to enforce the laws are intentionally breaking them with early releases. Judges who were ruling on a case invovling state prisons only decided to expand it to facilities not part of or represented at the hearings. If you go along with that, you sure have a strange concept of justice.”
Huh?
Surefire, the law does address itself to jails. Go look at it, then do a word search for “jail,” and the first time that word appears in the text of the law, is the ‘graph that pertains.
I don’t think it’s written very well.
But it clearly says “jail.”
The judge’s ruling doesn’t reflect the law as written.
On the other hand, there’s nothing in the law that says it should be applied retroactively, so I don’t know what the sheriff’s are doing with this inmate dump they’ve got going on right now. Yet that’s not what the judge based his ruling on.
So I don’t know what in the world anybody’s thinking. I don’t mean, y’all commenting here. I mean the county sheriffs, the deputies union and the judge, all of whom, no matter which side of the issue they come down on, seem to have reading comprehension issues.
Mavis Beacon Says:
every single time you disagree with a ruling it’s horrible judicial activism and every single time you agree with it, it’s suddenly proper judging.
Exactly. Like Prop 8. It went thru the proper channels and was voted on by the people. Passed. So we’ll apply your logic and stipulate that it should become law without any activist judges overturning it. Is that ok with you Mavis? Uh huh. That’s what I thought. Now go ahead and point out the hypocrisy of the conservatives again. Then look in the mirror.
Get Serious,
Prop 8 is a Constitutional challenge. This hold imposed by the Sac’to judge, MacMaster, involves no such thing. Apples and oranges.
Also, the judge was not invalidating the law itself (which is what the Prop. 8 lawsuit is about), but simply interpreting it (I think incorrectly, but that isn’t the point here). Again, apples and oranges.
Sure Fire, what does the law say? You’re telling us to read it, why can’t you just quote it, if you know it? You and that kangaroo judge. You tell us what the law says. You’re a f’n cop for crying loud. Just quote the law as it’s stated. Why can’t you or that so called judge simply quote this law as it’s printed? You with your “it’s the law”, and this judge with his, “it would be a disaster”. OK, your pundency. What is the law? Just tell me what it says, exactly.
Celeste: Huh?
What?
Get Serious, my response is that I don’t jump up and down complaining about judicial activism!
I think Celeste is making an overly-fine distinction here about what counts as “judicial activism.” Is it when judges overrule a law citing its unconstitutionality (federal or state) or is it when they interpret a law in a way that modifies the way it is carried out? I don’t think the term “judicial activism” stands up to that kind of scrutiny. As many of the conservative commenters here (and elsewhere) show again and again, it’s not really applied with any consistency whatsoever. It’s used as a political epithet and not a real idea.
Because certain people are too lazy or to stupid to look up the law themselves I’ll post this.
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 18 X3 (Ducheny)
As Amended August 20, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :Vote not relevant
SUMMARY : Makes statutory changes necessary to implement changes to
the 2009-10 Budget Act. Specifically, this bill :
1)Property Crime Thresholds – Increases the value threshold for
various property crimes to reflect inflation since 1982.
2)Inmate Credit Reform – Establishes: a) consistent day-for-day
credit earning status for offenders currently eligible for earning
day-for-day credit in both jail and prison; b) authorizes the
department to award enhanced credits (up to four months) for the
completion of rehabilitation, education, and vocation programs in
prison; c) authorizes the department to extend existing enhanced
credits for fire camp inmates (two days for one day) to inmates
waiting to be transferred to a fire camp; and, d) provides for day
for day credits for inmates serving jail terms.
3)Parole Changes – Low and moderate risk offenders with non-serious,
non-violent and non-sex offenses will not be subject to parole
revocation.
4)Parole Re-Entry Courts – California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) will establish the Parole Accountability
Program. As part of the program CDCR will use a parole violation
decision-making instrument to determine the most appropriate
parole sanctions for a parole violator. Parole violators with a
history of substance abuse of mental illness may be referred to a
re-entry court. The court will work with the assistance of parole
agents to determine the appropriate conditions of parole.
5)Probation Enhancement – County probation will receive a portion of
CDCR savings for improving outcomes so felony probationers who
would otherwise be sent to prison remain under the jurisdiction of
the counties. Probation will use these funds for additional
officers and evidence-based programs.
6)Public Safety Commission – Establishes a California Public Safety
Commission. The commission will establish sentencing guidelines
by July 1, 2012. With a majority vote of the Commission that must
==========
The county inmates that are being talked about are actually inmates doing state prison time in county lock-ups. Further info below.
Actual Bill Language:
County Jail Credits. “This bill would also revise the time credits for certain prisoners confined or committed to a county jail or other specified facilities, as provided.” (SBx3 18, pg. 2, Official California Legislative Information, Accessed 2/7/10)
Los Angeles County: “Inmate Credit Changes.” (William T. Fujioka- Chief Executive, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, 10/1/09)
Asm. Torrico Helped Write The Law. “The alleged assault prompted several lawmakers to call for an immediate halt to the law’s implementation at the county level. ‘We’re no longer speculating. An inmate was improperly released and almost raped a woman,’ said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont. ‘It’s obvious we’re creating a very dangerous situation.’ Torrico, who is running for attorney general and helped write the law, said he will introduce a bill next week seeking to remove counties from the law’s early release provisions.'” (Don Thompson, “California Law To Free Inmates Early Draws Protests,” Associated Press, 2/6/10)
=======
You guys get this part…Actual Bill Language:
County Jail Credits. “This bill would also revise the time credits for certain prisoners confined or committed to a county jail or other specified facilities, as provided.”
Translation for Robbie and Mavis…State prisoners not housed in state facilities. So yeah Celeste, it pertains to some county inmates but not some of the type being released already, only those who should be in a state facility as it is.
The parole changes also apply to “moderate” risk offenders so we have that to look forward to.
I’m waiting to see that lie I posted Mavis, what’s taking you?
3)Parole Changes – Low and moderate risk offenders with non-serious,
non-violent and non-sex offenses will not be subject to parole
revocation.
Thanks for posting the bill language, SureFire, so people don’t have to click through.
The language of the jail section certainly could be better. It’s allowing everybody to interpret it as they wish.
Looks like it’s going to be cleaned up but it was never meant to include prisoners strictly doing county time.