Krupp Files: Dark via Public safety-light

Oct 28th, 2011 | By | Category: Krupp Files, Realignment, Sex Offenders, Spotlight
Share

There’s a darkness upon us

Richard Krupp, Ph.D.

For the past few months there has been much discussion regarding the transfer of responsibility for some prison level inmates to the local counties. The procedure was packaged and sold as “Re-alignment.” The impetus for the changes reportedly attributed to a Supreme Court decision relative to inmate health concerns and “over-crowding.” As I have mentioned in previous articles, any way you want to measure it, criminals are safer and healthier in prison than out. To deal with this “non problem,” the State of California is moving “low level” criminals from state prison to county jail and/or probation.

The Sacramento Bee reported on October 26, 2011 that, “Most Prisoners sent to county committed serious crimes in the past.” It was described as a “Vexing twist in inmate shift.” Who is the bigger fool? On one hand we have those who are sending the “Non serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders and on the other hand those on the receiving end having to figure out what to do with them. The Sacramento County Sheriff and various District Attorneys have expressed concerns about the innocuous sounding “Re-alignment.” It almost sounds like a chiropractic adjustment or something you would have done during a tune up to your car.

The Sacramento Bee article goes on to describe a realigned “Non” sentenced for Grand Theft, but previously convicted of Armed Robbery. Evidently someone figured out that criminals who commit “low level” crimes sometimes have previously committed serious and violent crimes. I guess some criminals dabble in both areas; they do not necessarily confine themselves to one type of crime exclusively. Imagine that. You can’t count on criminals to be consistent. Maybe a new category should be added to the “Non’s?” Maybe the new designation could be the “Semi-non’s.”

Actually the packaging and sale of the “Re-alignment” procedure sounds similar to the drug treatment failure sold to California taxpayers in 2000, packaged as “Proposition 36.” A Rand study released in 2005 used a sample from the more than 23,000 offenders imprisoned on low-level drug offenses from specified urban counties in 1998 and 1999, the last years of sentencing activities prior to the emergence of the Proposition 36 campaign in California. A couple of key findings:

The findings support prosecutors’ contention that low-level offenders receiving prison sentences had more serious and extensive criminal histories than the “low-level” conviction label suggests.

In the samples, the low-level drug offenders in prison were often much more serious offenders than the “low-level” label implies. Indeed, imprisoned low level drug offenders tended to have criminal histories reflecting their involvement in a variety of criminal offenses, cases involving large quantities of drugs, or both.

The Governor has sold a bill of goods to the counties and the taxpayers. The fact is that the people in prison are there for good reasons. They have already failed as citizens, as probationers, and county jail inmates. They have already been in various drug treatment and other “programs.” They commit a variety of crimes and do not restrict themselves to only one category. If the county level “treatment” had been effective they wouldn’t have ended up in prison. They will commit more crimes. Some will be “low-level” and some will be violent. There will be victims that there wouldn’t have been without “Re-alignment.”

Taxpayers cannot count on the Governor to be honest about the “Re-alignment” procedure. They likewise cannot count on the Department of Corrections administration to provide accurate information. Can they count on legislators or the media to act as watchdogs? I doubt it.

In the words of the Avett Brothers,

“There’s a darkness upon you that’s flooded in light. In the fine print they tell you what’s wrong and what’s right. And it flies by day and it flies by night. And I’ m frightened by those who don’t see it.”

Maybe the Governor should ask for an extension from the court to provide more time to expand prison capacity. Can the old Youth Authority facilities, be utilized? What about expanding Community Correctional Facilities or out-of-state contracts? At least the addition of more prison space would protect the public from the criminals.

Sponsored Content

18 Comments to “Krupp Files: Dark via Public safety-light

  1. Ron Mason says:

    BU 6, SO 6, MANAGERS OF BU 6 and SO 6

    Are you fortunate enough to have worked at least 27 years in your classification? Are you fortunate enough to be over the age of 50 and have survived all that the corrections world has imposed on you and your family? If you have answered yes, I want you to know that the CDCR is going through a phase called PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT.

    The State of California is making grand changes as to how criminals shall be dealt with. CDCR is about to begin downsizing and reducing the population of criminals that CDCR will supervise. With the reduction in convicted felons to be supervised by California Correctional Peace Officers comes a reduction in the number of Correctional Officers required to supervise the convicted felons. With this reduction of convicted felons, the State of California will need less Correctional Peace Officers to supervise the convicted felons during their incarceration. Therefore Correctional Peace Officers will be laid off in this process.

    At numeros prisons, Correctional Officer positions have been identified as surplus due the forthcoming reduction of convicted felons. This means layoffs for California Correctional Peace Officers. They have begun receiving their layoff notices starting October 21, 2011. These layoff notices are very real and shall occur. These California Correctional Peace Officers have families and loved ones that depend on them so that they may continue to live day to day. The have spouses, children. parents, grandparents. bothers and sisters that depend on them in the trying economic times.

    Did you know that a member of the Unit 6 family that has 27 years or more will receive a pay raise by retiring? You will pay less in medical. Pay less in union dues? Pay less in the cost of gas in the daily commute? Yet PICOs shall endure more expenditures waiting by the phone for work when they could be working at a job that pays less or collecting unemployment waiting for a call to work.

    To the BU 6, SO 6 and Managers of BU 6 and SO 6 that have 27 year and over, you have the ability to ensure that these brothers and sisters may continue to provide for their familes. We once were a group of California Correctional Peace Officers that went out of their way to make sure we all got our issue and looked out for eachother, maybe it is time we started looking out for our own again.

    Just sayin………

    RMCII CorcoranII

    • kl2008a says:

      Ron, you are correct and make an excellent point about those who are at or over 27 years in. I cannot fathom why someone would want to stay in when they can get out and be making more money and having less stress in the process. Sure 27 years will get you another 9% if you live that long and all it will do is raise the taxes on your retirment to where you’ll only recoup 5% of the 9 you’d make. WHY would someone do that? It’s been proven that for every year you stay in this shithole past age 50 the stress alone will rob you of 5 years from your life. Think about all you’d be able to do with 15 more years collecting retirement. Now, I understand that there are some that have a second family or large bills to pay or other obligations that would keep them beyond the 27 year mark, but I would think they are few. Look around you and see how many of your peers (with less seniority) who’s job you may save by retiring. If not for them, do it for you and your health and mental well being.

      • Bob Walsh says:

        I am reminded of a old time DVI Lt, Ed Strader. He went for his pre-retirement PERS workup and found out that he was working for $17 a month above his retirement pay.

        • Nobody says:

          Your right Bob, I know someone who is going out with 26 years the diff in take home pay is a little less then $200 a month. Most spend more then that just getting to work.

  2. tmal says:

    I have said this before. The counties cannot possibly handle all the people that need to be incarcerated in county jails due to realignment. With the money the counties get from AB109 they will turn around and rent space from the state to put their county inmates in state prisons do deal with the overflow. The Governor has to do something publicly to show the supreme court he is doing everything possible to comply with their order.

  3. King Wills says:

    “What about expanding………..out-of-state contracts?” With all due respect to Dr. Krupp, that’s an odd idea to propose in this forum.

  4. RaiderMike says:

    Layoffs have this whole Dept. in a wreck! Officers lives and the lives of they’re families will be destroyed. It seems like no one is helping, or giving out the facts. Its totally unstable and stressfull. I have a suggestion that HeadQuarters might think about…Freeze Academy for 5 years! No officers lose jobs…and retirement downsizes our numbers naturally. It just makes sense.

    • kl2008a says:

      RaiderMike. are you a fish with CDC? You should know by now (most do just after leaving the academy) that NOTHING CDC does is done to “Just make sense”. Usually, it’s just the opposite.

      • RaiderMike says:

        Not a fish…not one of the unlucky ones…YET! Just makes me sick….union should have sat down with moonbeam anmade better decisions for the downsizing. Word is that now th
        e Union steps in…a tad late…dont ya think?

        • kl2008a says:

          I agree that CCPOA should’ve at least called JB and asked “what the heck” instead of rolling over. Would it have made any difference is hard to say but at least an attempt should’ve been made. I would like to believe that they are laying low to form some sort of strategy to lessen the damage. My gut tells me that even if the EC knew what the outcome of the realignment plan was going to be they would’ve kept their mouths shut because the Union endorsed JB.

          While lay-offs could be on the horizon I think they are still in the distance and remember that “It aint over until the fat lady sings” and so far, all we’re hearing is the concert preludes, which seem to be getting louder. The lay off process is a drawn out one that will no doubt have court challenges and delays.

          I do foresee that in the next year the County’s will be having a cow when they find out that, due to this realignment plan, they’ll be taking it in the shorts in OT pay for jail staff and/or paying rent-a-joints to watch over their new brood and the $$ JB will be giving them is not enough to cover THEIR costs.

          As for reducing the inmate population to meet the court mandates to meet a “constitutional level” of medical care (which has never been defined), this will never ever happen. Even if there was one doctor to one inmate the folks running the court circus now will still say that isn’t enough.

          Bottomline, for now hang tough, stay safe and watch yours and your partner’s back. Do your 8 for the State then hit the gate, and don’t be late. I’m praying for all of yaz out there.

    • Brandon says:

      “It just makes sense” … That is the precise reason it won’t be implemented! “Makes sense” to upper management/ overseeing politicians is like cursing in church on Easter.

  5. Greling Jackson says:

    - “Among nonviolent offenders, about a third had a history of arrests for violent crimes. One in five had a self-reported history of convictions for violence.”

    -“Within 3 years of their release from prison, about 7 in 10 nonviolent releasees were rearrested for a new crime; nearly half were reconvicted; and more than a quarter were returned to prison.”

    -“Among nonviolent releasees, about 1 in 5 were rearrested for a violent crime within 3 years of discharge.”

    Source: “Profile of Nonviolent Offenders Exiting State Prisons”, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf

  6. Bob Walsh says:

    I am not sure whether it is more fair to say the Governor sold the counties a bill of goods or the Governor and the legislature rammed it down their throats. Some counties happily bought the pig in the poke in hopes of more income. A few were reluctant from the start. Whichever, the end result will almost certainly be the same. A lot more hassle for a lot less net income than was hoped for.

  7. AJ Honeylake says:

    “Semi-nons”? Can’t do that. Attach the prefix “semi” to anything and Dianne Feinstein will soon have to get involved.

  8. JC says:

    Californians whine on why we spend so much on cdcr, now they’re terrified and asking “who let the dogs out?”. Pathetic! Whatever, this state is going down the drain caused by greed. The whole picture is that senators and legislators are all being manipulated by corporations to privatetize everything and take the tax payers money. For example, instead of building more prisons or county jails due to overcrowding, politicians wil recommend or imply the government to detain the inmates to private owned prisons. Its all about money. Stop being so ignorant and look at the big picture. Just my opinion.

    Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/26/4006935/most-nonviolent-offenders-turned.html#ixzz1c4szLpBv

    • kl2008a says:

      Who is the bigger campaign contributors? The construction companies that build new prisons or the corporate owners of the rent-a-joints? The answer is obvious. You wouldn’t expect our politicians to bite the hand that feeds them, would you?