{"id":8853,"date":"2023-04-17T16:07:29","date_gmt":"2023-04-17T23:07:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853"},"modified":"2023-04-18T09:07:28","modified_gmt":"2023-04-18T16:07:28","slug":"gaslighting-the-public-on-recividism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853","title":{"rendered":"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism"},"content":{"rendered":"

A story posted in the online edition of the Sacramento Bee reports<\/a> that after California’s 2016 adoption of Proposition 57, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” recidivism went down according to a report<\/a> from state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The initiative allowed criminals convicted of so called non-violent crimes such as drug dealing, car theft, grand larceny and burglary to be released from prison early based upon their behavior while incarcerated.\u00a0 The criminal’s prior convictions, even for murder or rape, were not required to be considered in the CDCR process to determine who was eligible and how much time off they would receive.\u00a0 The Bee article notes that the measure was opposed by law enforcement organizations like the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California District Attorneys Association, who warned that it would allow the release of dangerous violent offenders resulting in increased crime.\u00a0 But in the three years after Proposition 57 passed, the CDCR reported that the conviction and return-to-prison rates for released inmates declined.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Although the declines were slight the CDCR stated “while these are preliminary findings,\u00a0 they\u00a0 show an early positive trend in California’s investments to improve public safety through an increased focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice efforts.”\u00a0 The head of the pro-Proposition 57 group Californians for Safety and Justice went further, telling the Bee “the report is also a really important reminder that the seemingly unceasing rhetoric and propaganda being pushed by law enforcement that somehow prioritizing rehabilitation in prison is jeopardizing public safety is just that: baseless propaganda.”\u00a0 The message here is that thanks to Proposition 57, California is getting safer and those who say otherwise are lying.<\/p>\n

Wow.\u00a0 All of this important information from just a three year review of conviction and return-to-prison numbers.<\/p>\n

Perhaps this story and the accompanying narrative should be put into context.<\/p>\n

In 2011, the Legislature passed and Jerry Brown\u00a0 signed into law, the most sweeping transformation of the criminal justice system in state history.\u00a0 AB109, dubbed “Public Safety Realignment,”\u00a0 passed on a democrat party-line vote with no committee hearings.\u00a0 It eliminated prison sentences for almost all property and drug crimes and required that existing property and drug felons coming out of prison receive light supervision on county probation, rather than heavy supervision on state parole.\u00a0\u00a0 Violent offenders released on parole, who violated parole conditions were put on probation.\u00a0 All released offenders subsequently convicted of drug-dealing, most assault and domestic violence charges, auto theft, burglary and grand larceny could only be sentenced to county jail and could not be sent to prison.\u00a0 The CDCR only tallies the offenders who return to prison, not county jails.<\/p>\n

In 2014, the ACLU and pro-criminal billionaire George Soros bankrolled and won adoption of Proposition 47, “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.”\u00a0 To make neighborhoods and schools safe, this measure transformed most drug transactions and thefts of $950 or less from felonies to misdemeanors, which carry almost no consequences.\u00a0 As a result, other than robberies and car thefts, people stopped reporting these crimes and police stopped arresting the offenders.<\/p>\n

According to the CDCR report, by the time that Governor Brown and George Soros pooled $10 million to get Proposition 57 passed in 2016, the arrest and conviction rates in California had already dropped by 10% since passage of AB 109.\u00a0 The same report indicates that between 2010 and 2013 the return-to-prison rate had been cut in half<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 By making it quite difficult for anyone other than murderers and rapists to be returned to prison, it is hardly surprising that the return-to-prison rate dropped slightly shortly after passage of Proposition 57.\u00a0\u00a0 To translate for the Harvard or Yale graduates reading this,\u00a0 enacting state laws which turn felonies into misdemeanors and make roughly 2\/3 of all felonies ineligible for prison<\/em> results in a lower felony conviction rate and fewer felons returning to prison.<\/p>\n

But the fear-mongering propaganda continues.\u00a0 This time in the form of a 2022 report on Crime Trends in California by the decidedly left-leaning Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).\u00a0 While reminding us that things are not nearly as bad compared to the end of the last national crime wave in 1992, the PPIC reported that between 2019 and 2021 homicides jumped by an unprecedented 41.2% and aggravated assaults by 18.0%.\u00a0 Gun-related homicides and aggravated assaults surged by 52% and 64%.\u00a0 Auto theft continued its 2020 climb, up an additional 7.6%\u2014now up by 28.4% compared to 2019. \u00a0 These are not good numbers<\/p>\n

Those insisting that rehabilitation is working need to explain how the criminals committing the over 41% increase in murders and the 18% increase in assaults slipped by without getting rehabilitated.\u00a0 The claim “yea but property crime is down,” is an insult to our collective intelligence.\u00a0 Were not punishing most property crimes in California.\u00a0 People don’t even report them any more.\u00a0 This also explains why arrests are down.\u00a0 No reporting, no consequences = fewer arrests.<\/p>\n

Final notes:\u00a0\u00a0 The CDCR operates under the direction of Governor Gavin Newsom.\u00a0 Californians for Safety and Justice is a pro-criminal front group funded by George Soros.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A story posted in the online edition of the Sacramento Bee reports that after California’s 2016 adoption of Proposition 57, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” recidivism went down according to a report from state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The initiative allowed criminals convicted of so called non-violent crimes such as drug dealing, car theft, grand larceny and burglary to be released from prison early based upon their behavior while incarcerated.\u00a0 The criminal’s prior convictions, even for murder or rape, were not required to be considered in the CDCR process to determine who was eligible and how much time off they would receive.\u00a0 The Bee article notes that the measure was opposed by law enforcement organizations like the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California District Attorneys Association, who warned that it would allow the release of dangerous violent offenders resulting in increased crime.\u00a0 But in the three years after Proposition 57 passed, the CDCR reported that the conviction and return-to-prison rates for released inmates declined.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"yoast_head":"\nGaslighting the Public on Recividism - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A story posted in the online edition of the Sacramento Bee reports that after California’s 2016 adoption of Proposition 57, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” recidivism went down according to a report from state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The initiative allowed criminals convicted of so called non-violent crimes such as drug dealing, car theft, grand larceny and burglary to be released from prison early based upon their behavior while incarcerated.\u00a0 The criminal’s prior convictions, even for murder or rape, were not required to be considered in the CDCR process to determine who was eligible and how much time off they would receive.\u00a0 The Bee article notes that the measure was opposed by law enforcement organizations like the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California District Attorneys Association, who warned that it would allow the release of dangerous violent offenders resulting in increased crime.\u00a0 But in the three years after Proposition 57 passed, the CDCR reported that the conviction and return-to-prison rates for released inmates declined.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-04-17T23:07:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-04-18T16:07:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Michael Rushford\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Michael Rushford\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853\",\"name\":\"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-04-17T23:07:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-18T16:07:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758\",\"name\":\"Michael Rushford\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=3\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"A story posted in the online edition of the Sacramento Bee reports that after California’s 2016 adoption of Proposition 57, “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act,” recidivism went down according to a report from state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The initiative allowed criminals convicted of so called non-violent crimes such as drug dealing, car theft, grand larceny and burglary to be released from prison early based upon their behavior while incarcerated.\u00a0 The criminal’s prior convictions, even for murder or rape, were not required to be considered in the CDCR process to determine who was eligible and how much time off they would receive.\u00a0 The Bee article notes that the measure was opposed by law enforcement organizations like the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California District Attorneys Association, who warned that it would allow the release of dangerous violent offenders resulting in increased crime.\u00a0 But in the three years after Proposition 57 passed, the CDCR reported that the conviction and return-to-prison rates for released inmates declined.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2023-04-17T23:07:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-04-18T16:07:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Michael Rushford","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Michael Rushford","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853","name":"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-04-17T23:07:29+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-18T16:07:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=8853#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gaslighting the Public on Recividism"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/818db0b54694df828fde443a64c42758","name":"Michael Rushford","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=3"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8853"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8853\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8861,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8853\/revisions\/8861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}