What’s up with the LA Times and their fact checking?
Yesterday the Times ran an unsigned editorial about the proposed cuts to the California prison system and how the tragedy of Lily Burk’s murder might be used as a cudgel by conservative law-and-order factions to try to derail the cuts, which are to be voted on by the state legislature this month. (I am summarizing here.)
Sensational crimes are often followed by get-tough-on-crime legislation, especially in a state where systems that promote direct democracy encourage headline-based lawmaking. Hence the passage of Megan’s Law, named after 7-year-old murder victim Megan Kanka, by the Legislature in 2004
So far so good.
But then the Times wrote:
Lily Burk might not have a law named after her, but the 17-year-old’s abduction and murder, allegedly at the hands of a parolee who was living at a local drug-treatment center, has political ramifications. That’s because it comes at a time when lawmakers are considering cuts to the state prison budget that could mean early release for more than 27,000 inmates.
Say WHAT??? What in the world are they talking about? “….early release for 27,000 prisoners….?
Uh, Guys. It does not help the effectiveness of your editorial if you get the story’s most significant fact wrong.
No one is proposing letting 27,000 prisoners out of the door.
You know that, right? Even the LAPPL—the police union—has been careful to drop using that number.
(I blogged about what the governor and company are, in fact, proposing last Friday.)
But that wasn’t the end of it. The LA Times folks didn’t just write the fallacious number once, they repeated it all over again near the story’s end.
That’s not to say we’re thrilled by the prospect of 27,000 inmates being released early and all at once. Unfortunately, though, there is a dearth of good alternatives.
NOoooooooo-o-o-o-o-o-oooo!
How could the editorial board (which normally is quite careful with its facts) use a number that is not only dead wrong, but one that will, I guarantee, be swung around like pair of nun chucks by those on the most alarmist end of the conservative spectrum— in other words, those who want to defeat the proposed cuts and reforms—and to do it with extreme prejudice.
To make absolutely sure I wasn’t missing something, after I read the piece yesterday morning, I called Seth Unger, the spokesman for the CDCR, and asked him if maybe the Times knew something I did not.
Unger groaned. “Yeah, I saw the editorial,” he said, and he wasn’t at all happy about it either. Not only did the Times have their facts wrong about the 27,000 and this whole “early release” thing, Unger said, but they put a weapon the hands of right-leaning partisans looking for an excuse to shoot down the plan. . “I mean that number is absolutely radioactive,” he said.
Yep.
The CDCR planned to write a letter to the editor, Unger said. Not that he expected that would undo the damage.
Bottom line, please be more careful with your facts, dear LA Times, especially when the stakes are this high.
PS: While you’re correcting things in the editorial— which, aside from the monster factual crater, is actually very good—you might want to correct this:
“Most inmates serve their full terms, and all are placed on parole for three years,” the editorial says about midway through the piece in a paragraph about the world of problems that were ushered in when California became a determinate sentencing state. The paragraph makes an important point. But again all future discussion the editorial might stimulate is hobbled by a factual blooper, albeit a smaller one than the radioactive 27,000.
Under determinate sentencing inmates do not serve their full terms. Unless you have an L after your sentence (life), nobody does. Serious and/or violent felons serve around 80 percent, the rest serve around 50. Those numbers can go up (but not down) according to prior convictions, strikes and other elements that trigger sentencing “enhancements.”
But what is true in determinate sentencing, is that every inmate knows before he or she enters prison, exactly what day he/she will be released. There is no earned credits or early release or time off for good behavior. Bad behavior, however, can earn extra time on the sentence. But stellar behavior cannot subtract months or years. And then when the release date arrives—as you have stated—every inmate, no matter how harmless or violent is dumped into the same three-year parole system to be “supervised” if you can call it that, by hideously overburdened parole agents.
The mistake might seem a small thing. Yet when we are discussing these traditionally reform-resistant, emotion-prone matters, it helps if we are all dealing from the same factual deck.
How can you support such a dumb idea like changing certain penal code charges from felonies to a lesser charge of a misdemeanor?
So, in reality, what your really doing is cutting criminals a break. Allowing a criminal to victimize additional innocents and commit more crimes – costing tax payers more money in court proceedings – until they commit that certain “over the top” crime and BINGO – you won the State Prison Stay award.
This is absurd.
I can go into numerous more absurd reasons – but its a waste of my precious brain powers.
My advice – never trust the LAT.
Isn’t finding errors in liberal newspapers fun and easy?
But, maybe it was just their opinion rather than factual.
Just for kicks, here’s a recent mistake by the NYT.
Wow. They even had to later correct the correction.
I guess that the NYT didn’t anticipate young Cronkite’s untimely death and ran short of time to prepare a carefully reviewed obituary.
A publisher once said that his first assignment to new reporters was to write the obits. If they made a mistake there, for which they were sure to hear about it, then he couldn’t trust them with bigger stories.
So, don’t trust the NYT, either…and, even its/i> opinions.
Poperlocker, given your vociferous denunciation do you actually know which felonies would be downgraded?
It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be times in human history where we decide to decrease penalties for certain crimes. My personal feeling is that we tend to be overly punitive in California, but even if you don’t feel that way, it’s hardly inconceivable that reducing penalties is always morally wrong, dangerous for citizens, and more expensive. Hopefully your objections are targeted to the specific cases and not evidence of a mind that believes that more jail time for everyone is some kind of solution.
Well Woody, it’s even more fun finding errors in conservative media because y’all are so damned pompous.
But enough about the right’s favorite media red herring.
What is interesting is that one hand the conservatives—and a politician doesn’t have to be very far right in this case—will look at any number right or wrong as a justification to oppose cuts to prison funding. On the other hand, they will end up in bed with one of their biggest foes, the all-powerful corrections officer’s union. I suppose it’s just the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” scenario, but for the staunchly anti-union California GOP it must be a bitter pill to swallow.
Marvis – The problem falls with targeting certain type of crminals – specifically gang members, drug dealers, or just an individual that is straight evil (death row material).
When arrest cases arise regarding a normal Joe Blow guy (with a minimal arrest history) that got in trouble for something really really stupid – but it falls under a felony category, then I would consider it be okay with dropping the case down to a misdemeanor charge – as sometimes is done with a wobbler at the state level. Los Angeles County Superior Court has hundreds of these cases filed daily – and the majority of them end up with summary or felony Probation. So, on getting to my point, the high percentage of those sent to State Prison from LA COunty are people that really needed to go in the first place – the worst of the worst.
When combating criminal acts of drive by shootings, gang violence, drug dealing (which violence is a major part of drug dealing and chronic usage) or catching someone involved in serious criminal acts – or what is called a 707b category, tweaking the penal code to make more room in state prison by giving people a break to stay on the streets – your asking for more violence/death and victimization. The cost of court proceedings is not even a major issue here. Your playing with the safety of Californians in general.
Your chances of targeting and placing a person behind bars will just become more exhausting and frustrating – by trying to give more breaks to the low level offenders – your allowing the high level offenders to run free and later re-offend a more serious felony charge. Put it to you this way, I have about maybe 10 people right now on my shit list. I know they are committing crimes all over the county – serious crimes involving guns, extortation, kidnapping, drug dealing….bla bla bla. No one can make a case on them…..they all have lengthy criminal records – been on parole/probation, have strikes, or been convicted of numerous misdemeanor charges.
They are going to be involved in a behavior of continued criminal acts – no one will stop them until they are eventually caught – maybe on one good felony case.
Once caught, they will be given all the equal rights and protections that any other normal law obeying citizen gets – bail, representation, to be faced by your witnesses, a court trial…..ect.
The guy is going to plea out to a lower charge – a misdemeanor and probably be out on the streets within days – back to the same old routine.
You still want to cut this type of guy a break?
Here are some penal code charges that need to be changed in California.
1st offense – driving a stolen vehicle – needs to be a straight felony.
1st offense – in possession of an unregistered weapon – needs to be a straight felony.
1st offense – a person carrying a concealed weapon upon one self – needs to be a straight felony.
The way the law is written now – you can get caught with a gun (1st time) and be allowed to plea out to a lesser charge and still be able to walk out of court and go buy a firearm under your name.
Look at how hard it is to make a case on a pedophile. A pedophile will maybe – if lucky maybe will have a misdemeanor charge of lewd acts or annoying children – all mickey mouse light weight charges. We all know a pedophile is up to no good – what is his real mission? Where is he really going with all of these perverted acts. Yes, you got it – rape – sodomy – molestation.
Do you also want to cut this guy a break too?