[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Tough On Crime? Not So Much.

by: David Dayen

Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 14:20:14 PM PDT


I was rendered almost ill by John Edwards' stance in the debate against the decriminalization of marijuana because "it would send the wrong signal to young people."  Chris Dodd made a strong response that cut to the heart of our failed prison policy.

DODD: Can I respond, I mean just why I think it ought to be? We're locking up too many people in our system here today. We've got mandatory minimum sentences that are filling our jails with people who don't belong there. My idea is to decriminalize this, reduce that problem here. We've gone from 800,000 to 2 million people in our penal institutions in this country. We've go to get a lot smarter about this issue than we are, and as president, I'd try and achieve that.

This, of course, is most acute in California, where we're waiting for the other shoe to drop on a federal court order that could potentially force the release of thousands of prisoners due to overcrowding.  State Sen. Gloria Romero held her ground and didn't allow the usual spate of tougher sentencing bills to pass the Legislature this year.  So once again, George and Sharon Runner will go to the ballot with a punitive measure designed to make themselves look tough while further battering a crippled prison system.

A year after bringing to California Jessica's Law, the crackdown on sex offenders, the husband-and-wife team of state Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner announced Monday a new initiative that would target gang members for tougher prosecution and dedicate nearly $1 billion annually to enforcement and intervention.

The Republican legislators from Lancaster hope to collect enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot, and they have the backing of the father of the state's three-strikes law as well as law enforcement officials, including Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

The Legislature has already rejected this bill, and it would again constrain the state budget with another walled-off mandate while doing nothing to address the major crisis in overcrowding.  It's feel-good nonsense for "tough-on-crime" advocates.

By the way, let's see how the last initiative the Runners promoted, Jessica's Law, is working out:

David Dayen :: Tough On Crime? Not So Much.

Hundreds of California sex offenders who face tough new restrictions on where they can live are declaring themselves homeless, making it difficult for the state to track them.

Jessica's Law, approved by 70 percent of California voters a year ago, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally.

Some who have had trouble finding a place to live are avoiding re-arrest by reporting that they are homeless - falsely, in some cases.

Experts say it is hard to monitor sex offenders when they lie about their address or are living day-to-day in cheap hotels, homeless shelters or on the street. It also means they may not be getting the treatment they need.

"We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous," said therapist Gerry Blasingame, past chairman of the California Coalition on Sexual Offending.

I agree with all of that except the word "potentially."  We felt good about "getting tough" on sex offenders, and now we have them living under bridges and untrackable.  How do you think "getting tough" on gang violence is going to work out?

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Soft on crime? (0.00 / 0)
My ass. Making marijuana illegal is soft on crime because it diverts law enforcement attention from real crime.

That aside, in a free society, people should be free to put what they want in themselves as long as they're not harming others. Anything else is a sham

On the gang proposal, what are the specifics?

I opposed Jessica's Law and I hate to say I told people so when I read that, but I did

The Silent Consensus


How far does that go? (8.00 / 1)
For example, if putting a substance (not arguing marijuana, just a 'substance X') into your body means that you're more likely to end up at the emergency room, which increases wait times, taxes medical staffs, and increases the cost of care by consuming medical supplies and equipment, does that qualify as harming other people?

[ Parent ]
I agree (8.00 / 2)
we should ban cigarettes :)

[ Parent ]
Don't you straw man me (8.00 / 2)
I'll fuck you up.

[ Parent ]
Good question (0.00 / 0)
a lot of that would be solved by adopting Switzerland's health care system

http://72.14.253.104...

The Silent Consensus


[ Parent ]
alright (0.00 / 0)
but I was specifically asking you about the principle.

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
I would say yes, if it causes other people to pay more. We live in a free society where people are free to fuck themselves up if they wish, but if they suffer problems due to it, they have to pay for it. Rehab is different since it's people who want to get clean, but to pay for care to continue that behavior is their responsibility

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox