Locals speak out about inmate release
State ordered to set free 40,000 prisoners in two years
Facing the prospect that more than 40,000 state prison inmates could be released early, some Auburn residents are concerned that convicted criminals could end up in their backyards. Harriet Salarno, Auburn resident and president and founder of Crime Victims United, has taken a vocal stance against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed plan to release 27,000 inmates to save money. She also argues that it’s unconstitutional for federal court judges to order the release of more than 40,000 inmates. “We’re very, very concerned about these releases because they’re not ‘rehabilitated’ and where are you going to send them?” Salarno asked during an interview with the Journal Wednesday. On Tuesday, federal judges ordered the state to release about 40,000 inmates over the next two years. In the order judges wrote that medical and mental health care for prisoners is “woefully and constitutionally inadequate.” Matthew Cate, secrtary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, issued a statement following the ruling. “We believe the federal courts are exceeding their authority under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and will continue to fight against a population cap or court-ordered early release,” Cate said. “We will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court any final ruling that would order the release of 40,000 inmates. The governor has proposed common-sense reforms in collaboration with public safety groups to address overcrowding without early release.” Neil Pople, president of Placer County Young Democrats, said that with the state’s 33 prisons housing more than 170,000 inmates — twice the number it was designed to hold — he hopes the governor’s plan is successful. “I’m hopeful that Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to reduce the strain on the prison system is as well-thought out as he claims,” Pople said. “The truth is, we cannot jail our way out of the problem of crime in this state, and the issue at hand is much bigger than simply releasing non-violent offenders and hoping for the best.” Salarno said Crime Victims United has presented position papers to legislators and the governor about how to effectively spend money in the prison system. “We have been telling the governor and the legislature about theses policies since the day the governor got elected,” Salarno said. “This is just not something that happened.” Salarno also has a personal stake in keeping prisoners behind bars. In 1979 her daughter Catina, then 18, was murdered. Earlier this week, she and other victim organization members gathered at the Southern California site of where Lily Burk was abducted by a state parolee deemed “non-serious” and was later slashed and beaten to death. He body was left in a downtown Los Angeles parking lot. “This brutal, heart-breaking murder never should have happened,” Salarno said. “It appears Lily Burk died at the hands of a man who had no business on street. He was a known threat with a long history of crime, and yet the governor’s parole policies allowed him to walk free. Her death is unconscionable.” Rick Jaramillo, a former convict who now runs a rehabilitation program in the county for other former prisoners, said he doesn’t think it’s a good environment to release given the poor economy. Jaramillo said his own program Re-Entry, Inc., is struggling during these times. He said it’s challenging to find work for some the men he is trying to help. “With the state financial crisis, the parole department doesn’t have any funding to put these guys up,” Jaramillo said. “If there’s not something set up for these guys, they’re going to go back to what they know.” Jaramillo said in the right environment he believes many prisoners could be successful. “I’m going to do my best to make sure that the men that are released to Placer County get what they need to be successful,” Jaramillo said. “But I’m only one program.” The Journal’s Jenifer Gee can be reached at jeniferg@goldcountrymedia.com.
|
Change Location:
|
The Governor tried to send them out of state to save $$ over our expensive prison system and overpaid guards here, but the unions protested, and he could not, blame the unions. Also what ever happend to the chain gangs and putting prisoners to work cleaning roads, ditches, road work instead of Caltrans? This might have generated some savings so they can pay for their room and board..but again there is probably some law against that
Maybe if this state would adopt the chain-gang attitude there would be less re-offending. If they don't like it they can change their lives so they don't go back.
I agree, the prisons should be able to pay for all their costs on the backs of the inmates, not the publics
1. 85% of state prison inmates reoffend
2. 25% of California Youth Authority inmates reoffend.
3. Less than 3% of Peer Court defendants reoffend.
Early Prevention and Diversion done by Placer County Peer Court reduces crime. Placer Peer Court had a budget of $180,000.00 per year.
Placer Peer Court is not funded for 2009-2010.
This lack of funding will cause increased juvenile crime and increased costs for all of us.
The prisoners who will be released will not be the violent ones. It'll be mostly people who are parole violators. The vast majority of people in prison are drug offenders. The percentage of violent criminals, murderers, rapists, etc., is small compared to the prison population. Those guys will stay in the prisons. So I'm not worried. I suspect there will be a shortage of drugs after some of these guys get released and some property crimes might become more prevalant, but we are talking about 40,000 people in a state with 30 million. Additionally, they won't be all released at once. Many won't be released but will just be given lesser sentences when violating parole or not get prison time at all, so it's wrong to say that 40,000 inmates today will be released tomorrow.
Perception, when your daughter or wife is raped and has her throat slashed by a 'non-violent' offender, what will you say then?
Also...since we're throwing out stats. 100% of all executed prisoners do not reoffend. Do the math.
perception: most violent criminals start out as non violent offenders. They work up the chain to become violent offenders. There is also less parole officers to monitor these people when they are released. All this will do is shift the prison population to the county jail system and will create hardship on the county jails. That will directly effect the residents of Placer County. Costs will go up and calls for service will go up in the law enforcement agencies. This will increase the cost for these services locally instead of shifting it to the state. This is the states way of balancing its budget on the backs of local government. Not to mention the increased exposure of crime to the local citizens.
I love MRex21's solution! If we only had a voice. Think about it, child molesters have no right to live. Kill em! Murderers deserve death, Execute em! That'll reduce our prison population. Kill manufacturers and growers of illegal drugs. Problem solved. Put the burglars and thiefs in work camps. Done! No more problem. But wait, this is California home of the queer; home of the academic socialist elite. These morons won't allow real solutions to real problems . So I suppose we'll have to learn to be hospitable to our pedophile neighbors, and break bread with rapists and murderers. After all "they're people too." "They have rights, and we all have to accept and protect them." Pretty disgusting state we live in! Maybe some day Americans will get sick of the politicians and their deciept, and maybe then "We the People" can take our country back. Until then let us not be silenced.
Perception. So you think property crimes will increase and that's ok?
Sadly, they are being released so they can get better medical and mental health care???? Does the Govenor forget that mental health treatment is at an all time low.....Placer County Adult sytem of care has cut its staff by almost 50% meaning less mental health treatment avail. Auburn clinic only is open for 4 hours a week....sucks to be Roseville because thats where they all will be heading for supposed treatment. ER's, get ready.....and those using them get ready for daylong waits.
What are those two women in the picture smiling about???? How strange!
chuckycheese, Ben Furtado took the picture. No doubt that is the reason they are smiling.
Arnold will be releasing the worst prisoners he can. Remember he has to punish the voters for not rallying behind him last election.
Chucky... They have already mourned.. they are sharing a joyful rememberance of a sister and daughter.
Neil Pople needs some life experience. I doubt as a "young democrat" he understands enough about life in general nor what this plan would mean to our community.
Won't Obama's free care for all solve the problem?
Concealing self-serving interests under guise of public safety is disingenuous! It is absolute nonsense to infer a lack of funding for peer court will cause an increase in juvenile crime. Additionally, comparing recidivism rates of offenders released from state institutions to juveniles who participated in peer court is ludicrous! Advocates of victim's rights are skilled in pushing political buttons and to challenge their interests is not wise politically. Yes, they suffered tremendous loss and the public empathizes with this. However, after a while it becomes tiresome to hear the same old rhetoric from these group as crime remains constant despite their efforts. At the same time, a voice of reason and sanity would be appreciated! As to ex-convicts running substance abuse treatment programs, if you are sincere, your efforts should be commended. If not, at least you offer a cheaper alternative to incarceration and maybe somebody benefits while you make a buck!
I'd rather have a non violent ex criminal as a neighbor than a prison in my back yard. It is naive to think that we don't already live amongst hundreds of convicted criminals.already. The idea of putting someone back into the prison system because they were late to a parole meeting is both insane and costly. Prisons by design should be for the worst of offenders. I'd like to know what the recidivism rate is for the treatment programs.
Llusitania, When juveniles suffer no consequences for their crimes they commit more crimes. The recidivism data I reported is correct. Juvenile crime is already on the increase in Placer County. Go talk to the security folks at the galleria. Talk to the Roseville Police or Probation. There are no meaningful consequences for first time juvenile offenders in Placer County at this time. What do you think these kids are learning? You would be more believable if you used your real name. Do you think the folks in county jails and state prisons started their criminal careers when they were 18 or older?j We have had Peer Court defandents as young as 10 years old.
dogs2u, residential theft is a non-violent crime.
Realist do you know Neil Pople personally? Or was that that just an attack because he is young & a Democrat?
JonGreen, while I totally support Peer Court I also believe that if the parents of young offenders suffered for their lack of parental guidance that the problems would decrease. Give the parents 15 days in jail or have them pay a hefty fine and I think they will start caring about what the kids are doing and who are they associating with.
Some parents do suffer. They have to appear in court. They have to take their kids to community service sites. They are sometimes ordered to take and pay for parenting classes. None of that happens now. Some of these kids have been raised in a "Jail Culture" Uncle Jim is in jail, Cousin Sue is in jail, Dad just got out of jail. Jail is not a place they are afraid of. It is just a part of the life they know. Being judged by their peers provides a lot more incentive to stop committing crimes than watching or listening to their parents. In some cases the peer court defendants have been removed from the home and placed in foster care. In some cases there has been parental abuse and these cases are given to the District Attorney.
JonGreen, it is not the premise of the program that is objectionable, but the logic used to justify it's importance and impact on juvenile crime rates when there is no causal connection between the two. Historically, peer court is notorious for dealing with juvenile offenders who are unlikely to reoffend with or without restrictive measures and to claim otherwise is ludicrous! Sadly, there are just as many juveniles who suffer consequences who continue to commit crimes as there are those who do not suffer consequences and commit more crimes! I believe many of them eventually wind up in programs like Re-Entry, Inc.
I can think of a way to clean up these "thugs" that will be left in our backyards but it will cost about .99 cents each. Can we afford that? Line 'em up & let 'em have it! Oooops, for saying this I might be attacked & labelled by some people & they'll say that I need counseling for anger. I wonder if they have a program for criminals in prison to re-educate them to find jobs? Bottom line......they will continue to break the law when released because they don't take responsibility for themselves & it's easier for them to get 3 hots & a cot in the big house. They're lazy & expect everyone else to foot their bill & that's why they re-offend to go back to prison (or try to get rich on the outside for selling dope or stealing from hard working american people like you and me). MAKE THE PUNISHMENT MORE HARSHER & THERE WILL BE FEWER CRIMINALS----& THAT INCLUDES HORSE WHIPPINGS!) In some countries, you get caught drinking & driving, they execute you on the spot! Guess what? There are fewer offenders because who wants to take the chance? No, let's all defend 'em & say "That's NOT fair to execute a murderer, let's all pay their way for the rest of their lives & spit on the families of the victims!" When Richard Allen Davis killed Polly Class (& basically spit on her family with the letter he read in the courtroom before his sentencing) they should've let Mark Class take him out back of the courthouse & pull the trigger on his head! People get ready & clean your guns! You may need em!
LUSITANIA, When do the criminals in cya, county jails, and state lock ups start their criminal careers? They don't wait until they are 18. Before Peer Court (1991) this county had 1550 juvenile cases per year. Even with the increase in county population juvenile crime is way down. Less than 3% of Peer Court defendants reoffend. That number is about 12 per year. Peer Court offenders are not likely to offend because of Peer Court not because they are only going to do one crime. Take a look at the Counties in California that do not have Peer Court programs. They all have super high juvenile crime rates. Peer Court does reduce juvenile crime.
Maybe we could start a Sheriff Arpaio style jail. He has been sued but has won every time, of course this is California, he's in Arizona. Recidivism is very low for those that have been in his jail.
Jon, you seem to know a lot about peer court. I for one appreciate your dedication to enlighten the naysayers. Peer Court has obviously been successful and merits funding. We cannot lose that which does so much good. They need what $80k? At $4000 per trial in regular juvenile court it would only take 20 cases.
ChuxxR,
We need the 80k that Probation has in their budget plus 100k that the court is not able to fund this year. A total of 180K. If we keep one kid out of a CYA facility we save over $200.000.00. That is the cost of one juvenile for one year in a CYA facility.
To be honest, I believe peer court was a "fluff" program with minimal impact on juvenile recidivism. You can manipulate the numbers anyway you like in attempt to make the program appear more valuable. However, under the totality of the circumstances, your claims are not supported by all the facts!!
JonGreen, I'd love to talk with you offline about Peer Court and its merits. I'm impartial, but could probably be convinced by some solid evidence.
lusitania, what facts do you have? take a look at the juvenile crime rate reported by the federal government for every county in the U.S. Please back up your opinion with data.
fnpople, first take a look at the Peer Court web site and then call me. My number is in the phone book and Jon Green is my real name.
Lusitania. A first time juvenile offender is a juvenile who was caught for the first time. Lot's of these kids had committed crimes before they were caught. If they weren't caught they would continue to commit crimes and if they don't suffer consequences when caught they will continue to commit crimes. Placer County is not Orange County.