CA Assembly and Senate at odds on AB109 fix

Aug 28th, 2013 | By | Category: 'Overcrowding', Budget, Politics-Relevant;, Realignment

capitolAssembly Speaker John Perez (who, for some reason, is no longer referred to in the media as “openly gay”) has said that he believes the legislature will approve the governor’s plan, or something very much like it, within the next few weeks.  Darrell Steinberg, the President Pro Temp of the Senate, does not agree.  He has described the proposal as “no promise and no hope.”

Steinberg’s chief roadpuppy, Mark Leno, liberal idiot from SF, has proposed the creation of a “sentencing commission” which would, presumably, simply decide to let a buttload of prisoners out early and thereby accomplish what the court (and he) want anyway.

One thing for sure.  There is no longer any road to kick the can down.  The legislature has to do something, or the state will be forced to release over 9,000 convicted felons, virtually all of who are NOT lightweight offenders.  Those guys are already long gone.  Pay up front of pay at the end, but one way or the other the residents, taxpayers, and future victims of crime will pay.

Sponsored Content

3 Comments to “CA Assembly and Senate at odds on AB109 fix”

  1. LAID-OFF-PA-I says:

    Great post by LTJ011164. I agree that the Department of Parole Operations should be expanded immediately!!!!! I also agree, with one of the other posters, that we need to build a few more prisons. However, I think these new prisons should be run by private prison companies instead of CDCR & CCPOA.The state already has enough state run facilities. Furthermore, CDCR needs to implement a Good Conduct Time and Earned Good Conduct Time release plan in order to stop future overcrowding. Building new prisons will only put a bandage on the overcrowding issue.

    If CDCR implements the Good Conduct time release programs, the overcrowding would stop immediately. Sure, prisoners would be released earlier then their imposed prison sentence, however, they would be released under the supervision of State Parole Agents, not County probation officers. State parole agents are trained specifically in supervising parolees when they are released from prison. State Parole Agents attend a 10 week Parole Agent Academy, they have to complete a 2 year training program before they become full Parole Agents and they attend firearms, arrest and home entry training four times a year.

    Parole Agents are armed. They supervise parolees by conducting unannounced home visits in order to see if the parolee is complying with his conditions of parole. The bottom line, AB109 has proven the Department of Adult Parole Operations was doing a good job supervising parolees before it was enacted. Ask any police department chief in California, and they will tell you they really miss working with Parole Agents when it comes to dealing with these AB109 parolees.

    County probation officers do NOT attend a 10 week academy. They are not trained to supervise dangerous parolees, and they are not armed. AB109 released a bunch of dangerous parolees under the supervision of county probation officers. This has proven to be a failure that has recently been exposed. Under AB109, crime has risen!!! The supervision of AB109 parolees, by county probation officers, has proven to be too much for probation officers to handle.

    Please, go read the LA Times article about LA’s probation officers suing their own Chief for ordering them to do unannounced visits at parolees houses without a firearm. This article proves the largest probation department in California can not handle the AB109 population, because they are not equipped and trained properly. Had AB109 parolees been released under state parole supervision, the crime rate would have not risen to the extent at what it is now.

    The bottom line, if CDCR implements the Good Conduct Time release plans, the prison overcrowding issue will be solved. Sure, the state will have to expand the Department of Adult Parole Operations. However, it will cost the tax payers Half the money to expand the parole department than it would be to build more prisons. Furthermore, when these parolees are released under state parole supervision, they will be better supervised, police departments will be able to utilize parole agents to help assist them in putting the parolees in jail and communities will be safer than they are right now.

    The bottom line, expanding parole will save the state and tax payers millions of dollars!!!! And most importantly, it will reduce the prison population and CDCR’s overcrowding problem immediately.

  2. Leon Thompson says:

    In all the discussions surrounding how to handle the release of 10,000 plus inmates by Dec 31, 2013, why hasn’t the idea of expanding CDCR, Div of Adult Parole been presented as a viable option. As a result of AB109, 450 Parole Agents have been laid off from Oct 2012 – April 2013. Furthermore, considering the estimated cost to house 1 inmate ranges from $50,000 – $60,000 annually, 1 Parole Agent, who on average supervises a caseload of 53 to 100 parolees would save the State of California $2,650,000 – 3,180,000 annually. Therefore, by rebuilding CDCR, Div of Adult Parole, via reinstatement of laid off Parole Agents and if necessary, expanding CDCR, Div of Adult Parole by hiring new Parole Agents at the annual base salary of $60,396 – $93,264, 1 Parole Agent supervising 53 – 100 parolees, at an annual base salary of $60,396 – $93,264 would be a more fiscally responsible solution and in the best interest of the long term budgetary issues California than spending $2,650,000 – 3,180,000 annually for the same 53 – 100 parolees that will be housed out of state and/or in local alternative detention centers.

    • LAID-OFF-PA-I says:

      For those of you who are offended by my private prison comment, I apologize. I don’t know if the state can afford to build and staff more prisons. If the state CAN afford to build the prisons without raising taxes, than they should be built, and run by CCPOA staff. I hope that makes people understand where I’m coming from.