LA demands changes to realignment

Nov 21st, 2011 | By | Category: Realignment, Sex Offenders
Share

The L A County Board of Supervisors is demanding that the formerly great state of California make some changes to realignment.  They are unhappy that the non-serious, non-violent no-sex offenders they are getting are anything but and they are afraid their (unarmed) probation officers will not be able to safely supervise these criminals.

According to supervisor Michael Antonovich, “This was not the profile that the governor was telling the counties we’d be receiving and be responsible for.”   Antonovich further stated that they raised the question about basing the N3 status on a full criminal history rather than most recent criminal offense.  He states, “We raised the question and they BS’d us.  Right now we’re trying to design the Titanic after it has sunk.”

Antonovich is wrong about one thing of course.  The governor and the legislature did not actually BS anybody, except in a very general way.  Its more a matter of the legislature and many of the counties bought the okeydoke.  They wanted the income and figured they could do it better and cheaper and didn’t read the fine print.  They bought a pig without looking too closely into the poke.

According to the L A Chief Probation Officer, Cal Remington, 57% of their new clients are considered to be at high risk of re-offending and require more services than the probation office had anticipated.

The County Mental Health Director, Marvin Southland, also complained that CDCr is not sending information on mental health cases in a timely manner.  Welcome to the wonderful  world of prison.

Paid liar for CDCr, Oscar Hidalgo, stated “probation officers statewide have indicated they can help these individuals more effectively.”

Clicking here will link to an item from the L A DailyBulletin on this subject.  Thanks to Floyd for the link.

 

 

Sponsored Links

2 Comments to “LA demands changes to realignment”

  1. C/O says:

    I completely agree with revamping this to reflect full criminal history. It was complete lunicy to go only off commitment offence. Most of these guys have a rap sheet a mile long and just happened to get lucky this time. Poor counties have not seen anything yet. Wait till they start feeling the blunt of the medical costs and the lawsuits to follow. Simply put somewhere in the not so far future the state is going to have to pony up to build more jail space to keep them locked in county. Or build additional prisons so our population % is below that of what the all seeing all knowing federal courts set…

    • kl2008a says:

      Believe it or not there is a method to their madness in the puzzle palace. If they had to include a thorough review of a prospective releasee’s file, instead of their immediate committment offense, nobody would be going nowhere. They knew what they were doing (or so it seems) to cut the amount of bodys they have. Tho, most times, they are like a dog chasing its tail that considers each step it takes as one closer to accomplishing its goal. In this matter, the County’s (looking at the bux the State was promising) agreed to play a shell game where they could never win.