Wait in Line Governor

By Eric Siddall

Today is Super Tuesday. Millions of Americans will patiently stand in line to vote for candidates who they have heard about, heard from, and who have been vigorously scrutinized by the media. Today is also the day that the California Supreme Court will hear how Governor Brown refused to stand in line and refused to hear from the public.

This move by the Governor violates the principles of transparency and sound deliberation. It also violates a law he signed in 2014, the purpose of which was to improve the initiative process by requiring a public comment period.  In the past, poorly drafted initiatives  became laws without being fully scrutinized.  The result was often a cascade of unintended consequences. The 2014 law rectified this problem by allowing the public to comment about proposed initiatives and requiring the legislature to hold public hearings.  After this deliberative process the drafter is permitted to amend his initial proposal to correct any flaws pointed out during the public comment period.  This period of public comment would have been important for Governor Brown’s amendment.

The drafter’s first version of the initiative, submitted on December 22, 2015, would have changed the procedures by which a juvenile who commits a violent crime is charged as an adult. The theme, subject, and purpose of the initiative related only to a small group of juvenile offenders. The initiative had nothing to do with sentencing, sentencing credits, or the adult prison system. It simply made a change to a single state law.

The public had 30 days to comment on this proposal. The drafters of this proposal were then supposed to use the public comments to add amendments to fix potential drafting errors. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.

Instead, on January 26, 2016, Governor Brown submitted an “amendment” that gutted most of the original initiative and added an entirely new section that has nothing to do with juvenile court procedure.  This new section would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for all adult criminals.  Moreover, this proposed change is not a mere tweak to a state law.   Governor Brown proposes to change the state constitution!

That’s right. The Governor’s amendment which he filed after the public comment period, thus depriving the citizens of any opportunity for democratic process, changes the Constitution of the State of California,  If enacted, this colossal and radical change to felony sentencing law that received no public scrutiny will have a lasting impact on Californians and victims of crime for years to come.

In order to understand how sweeping this change is, consider that the original proposal only addressed the procedures for directly charging a juvenile as an adult.  In 2014, there were about 400 direct filings in the entire state. Brown’s “amendment” would apply to every single prisoner in state prison, or roughly 113,000 of the most serious and violent felons incarcerated in California.

Changing our Constitution, changing 40 years of sentencing law, changing around 40 criminal statues, and changing six statewide initiatives is too important to do a rush job. Governor Brown should honor the process that he helped create and support.  He should wait in line like every other Californian to have public comment and legislative review of such an impactful initiative.

Eric Siddall is a Director with the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.

 

Who Are You Going To Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes?

By Marc Debbaudt

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” Richard Pryor in his filmed comedy performance, Live on the Sunset Strip, tells the story of his wife catching him with another woman. He denies anything is going on, and asks his wife, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” Before Richard Pryor, Chico Marx, playing the character Chicolini while impersonating Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx), spoke the line in the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup. That refrain ran through my head when I read the breathless headline, “The Great Experiment: Realigning Criminal Justice in California and beyond” in the March issue of “The Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science (The Annals). Released on February 19th, and chock full of “analyses,” the publication examined “Realignment” and changes in incarceration brought about by the 2011 California Assembly Bill 109.  Examining various aspects of the subject, the publication concluded with predictions about “The Future of Decarceration.”  (Yes, “decarceration”–I kid you not.)

One article, co-authored by Magus Lofstrom of the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), concluded Realignment had no effect on violent crime and had “only a modest increase in property crime.” That conclusion had already been picked up by various  news outlets eager to prove that the great public safety “experiment” is working.  And then…..on the very same day The Annals was published, Margus Lofstrom and PPIC issued a press release regarding the FBI’s nationwide preliminary crime data for the first six months of 2015.  The lead sentence said it all: “Preliminary data from the FBI offer discouraging news about crime trends in California’s largest cities.”

Wait….say what?  The release went on:  “These increases, particularly in property crime, are widespread and not trivial in magnitude.”  I asked myself how in light of his distinguished analyses in the March issue of The Annals could that be, but I read on.  “Of the 66 California cities in the data, 49 saw increases in violent crime and 48 experienced increases in property crimes.Many of these cities saw double-digit percent increases-34 in violent crime and 24 in property crime.”

Sadly, as reported by the PPIC, “The increase in property crime in California cities stands in sharp contrast to the other four states with the highest populations: large cities in Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois saw decreases of …property crimes…”  No, it can’t be true! The experiment in decarceration proves to be a public safety travesty?

Yep, sometimes timing is everything-on the very same day a publication devoted to trumpeting the success of “decarceration” was published, PPIC had to acknowledge the reality of soaring crime rates in California.  And boy did California represent!  We are the winners! Five of the top 10 spots nationwide for an increase in Violent Crime Rates went to California cities! Congratulations social engineers and George Gascón! California cities took “win, place, and show” for increases in Property Crime Rates. Unfortunately, Albuquerque, New Mexico sneaked into the #4 spot to break up the superfecta-although California cities rebounded to take 6 of the top 10 spots.  PPIC ended their press release with this gem: “If we can identify the factors that are contributing to higher crime rates, we can implement effective crime-preventive strategies.” Really?Gosh, let me think. Could it possibly be the result of “Prop 47” and “Realignment”? No, that would be much too obvious.

As I put down the “discouraging” FBI crime stats and continued to peruse the abstracts of The Annals, another article caught my eye.  Written by the Chief Probation Officer of San Francisco City/County, it was headlined ” A Practitioner’s Perspective on Realignment: A Giant Win in San Francisco.”  Again, I looked at the FBI Crime Stats:  San Francisco was #1 nationwide in the increase in Property Crime Rates, and #8 in the increase in Violent Crime Rates.  That’s a “Giant Win?”  Did he fall into the rabbit hole? Of course, then I remembered the piece was written by a probation officer who only sees a case if there is an arrest and a conviction.  Given the plummeting arrest rates in San Francisco by officers disheartened by George Gascon, the San Francisco DA‘s refusal to file cases,  I can understand why the author misinterprets her diminishing caseload as a success. By the way, Gascon, in  his own private “experiment” with the lives of citizens in San Francisco, created his own version of Prop 47 and witnessed crime rising as a result, but that didn’t stop him from thereafter foisting his skewed vision on the rest of California as one of Prop 47’s principal proponents.

Besides the deception of its title, calling it the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act when it had nothing to do with safety, one can only wonder what the spin will be by the backers of Realignment and Prop 47 given the drastic and indisputable increases in crime rates witnessed in the first half of 2015 as a result of their great safety “experiment.” Yes, you can be sure they will spin it.  And you can be sure they won’t apologize for their “experiment” at your expense having gone awry.

One thing is certain, the victims of crime represented by increasing crime rates — such as the San Francisco pharmacist  robbed at gunpoint last Wednesday, or the British tourist fighting for his life after being stabbed in the head during a street robbery in San Francisco at the same location two days later — will certainly use a harsher word than the PPIC to describe the soaring crime rate unleashed by Realignment and Prop 47. I rather doubt “discouraging” will be the word they use.

Marc Debbaudt is the Immediate Past President and President Emeritus of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.  The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.