CA Prisons Dumping Sex Offenders on the Street

So in this chapter of the 'end of the world as we know it' it seems that serious overcrowding in CA prisons resulted in a class-action lawsuit that has some seemingly unavoidable but disturbing consequences. From the article:

"When parolees get arrested, they get released the next day," said Susan Kane, a Department of Corrections supervising agent in Stockton, just outside San Francisco. "So it doesn't matter how bad they are or what's happened. If there are no fresh criminal charges, they are released the next day back into the community."

and this:

In San Joaquin County, where Stockton is located, dozens of convicted sex offenders who were sent to the county jail during a 10-week period last year were all released within a 24-hour period, records show.

I took a quick look at the CA inmate statistics and found that roughly 10% are incarcerated for drug crimes and about the same percentage for all sexual offenses. Now I may be crazy, you wouldn't be the first to make that accusation, but wouldn't it make more sense to put the sex offender (who has a high likelihood of re-offending) back in prison and release a drug-offense inmate instead to relieve the overcrowding? Personally, I'd much rather have a pot dealer back on the street than a child rapist.

here's the article:

CNN

and the prison census report:

CA Inmate Census

that would be the sensible thing to do or just use the fema camps but no sense does not come into it when it comes to public safety i bet they do not even tag them

I completely agree with you. I don't understand why pot dealers and petty thiefs are treated worse than someone who rapes and molests children and women, where is the logic in this?

They truly don't care about the victims of the past or the ones soon to be victimized. The pot heads, drug dealers, non violent thiefs.....well they need to be taught a lesson overcrowding or not but being a sexual predator hey no big thing so they go free.
Our system is jacked up that's for sure.

Originally posted by jtma508

Now I may be crazy, you wouldn't be the first to make that accusation, but wouldn't it make more sense to put the sex offender (who has a high likelihood of re-offending) back in prison and release a drug-offense inmate instead to relieve the overcrowding?

Sexual offenses are among the lowest likelihood for recidivism.

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

BJS

I'd put probationary offenses such as failing to register as an offender pretty far down my list of concerns.
Not only far down the list but it's also an artificial crime of bureaucracy.

reply to post by jtma508


That would make more sense now wouldn't it?!?!? Others including myself have said this so many times I can't count. Yet there are so many people out there who still believe in the propaganda used to promote the "Drug War" that they refuse to see the logic.

It really comes down to Violent and NonViolent offenders actually. Besides those who are convicted of Drug charges, you have other Non-violent crimes too that should always be considered for release before the Violent ones. For example, if you must release some inmates for whatever reason, I'd much rather have some cyber criminal or embesslement criminal released instead of someone violent. Even though they are a convicted felon I'm not worried about some money launderer or whatever raping or hurting me or raping my wife.

One major problem though is that the majority of inmates are there for Non-violent Drug charges and they make up a major bulk of the money which pays for the system to operate so nobody within the system is too motivated to remove the "bread and butter" which is paying their salary. If you really think about it, from a business perspective, Law enforcement actually has a vested interest in making sure there is enough crime to pay for itself.

That is a bunch of crud. Any high risk offender like a sex offender is on what is called "high contol" parole. Don't get it twisted.

The lawsuit arose out of wrongful deaths because of the lack of medical care. Their treatment was found to be unconstitutional.

Non-violent parolees are watched for a minute. As long as they don't abscond and test clean at their monthly check-in, they are cool.

Yes, you have to pick up a new case to go back to prison in this state. There were way too many abuses by parole officers. There isn't a damn thing wrong with that.

They have high risk sexual predators in this state on GPS. Anybody trying to tell a different story, trust and believe, they have their roots in the CCPOA. That is a powerful union in this state.

Well heaven forbid they release all the minor drug offenders instead right? I mean they are the reason for the prisons over crowding in the first place.


But sex offenders? sure let them out they are harmless right? not as menacing as the dreaded pot head.

Robberies are plain sight crimes. Everyone knows it just happened. Sexual predators are sneaks who predate on weaker victims like women and children. Often the crime is not even reported (especially by children).

I consider the sexual abuse of a child to be among the most serious of crimes. But hey, out of sight, out of mind...

Even though these predators were released they will hopefully still be monitored more closely than other criminals. While on parole, they must report daily and stay within certain confines. For instance, in the case of child sexual abusers they cannot be within a couple thousand feet of schools, children playgrounds, day care centers, etc.

Not sure about details of that, just saw a show about it the other night.

Parole Supervision

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Could it be that the robbers, weapons traders and drug dealers participate in activities that make it much more obvious they are up to no good and more likely to get caught?

These are predators.....they are smart, cunning, quiet and reserved when needed. Qualities that the average robber and drug dealer lack. A predator knows what they are doing and are almost always less likely to get caught, they take their time in planning out their despicable actions and who they are going to commit such heinous acts against. They prey on weakness and hide this well. They make their victims believe grave things will happen to them if they tell.........so very often....all too often indeed these victims hold it inside for fear.

Children should mean more to us, they depend on us as citizens, parents, friends and trusted neighbors and we adults depend on our government to do their part and keep these sick twisted humans out of our towns. But they won't.

I can almost guarantee that those numbers are much higher.

Besides your info is over six years old.

Its actually not that bad of an idea, according to actual research sex offenders actually have the lowest recidivism rate of all the criminals. The problem is people get too much of what they "know" from the TV.

reply to post by Superhans


Even if what you say is true, this is about more than just "the numbers". A car thief who continues to steal cars every time he is released is obviously a problem however the Sex offender who rapes or hurts a child just one additional time is still much worse than the multiple car thefts.

Originally posted by mOjOm
reply to post by Superhans

 

Even if what you say is true, this is about more than just "the numbers". A car thief who continues to steal cars every time he is released is obviously a problem however the Sex offender who rapes or hurts a child just one additional time is still much worse than the multiple car thefts.

It is true and you should take some time out of your day and brush up on reading skills. Go ahead and take the time to look into the article and see what is actually happening. Its not just sex offenders its ALL criminals, they only said sex offenders because naturally everyone thinks child molester whenever someone says sex offender. Then they are also being "released" for violating parole (that means they were already free in the first place).

Originally posted by brandiwine14
These are predators.....they are smart, cunning, quiet and reserved when needed. Qualities that the average robber and drug dealer lack. A predator knows what they are doing and are almost always less likely to get caught, they take their time in planning out their despicable actions and who they are going to commit such heinous acts against. They prey on weakness and hide this well. They make their victims believe grave things will happen to them if they tell.........so very often....all too often indeed these victims hold it inside for fear.

If they were predators, they would be labeled sex predators.
a sex offender is a wide area. some for some pretty bad crimes, some for flashing, etc...like "violent crime" can be anything from a murder to a simple fight.

The media tends to suggest all are the same. also all clouds are tornados.

reply to post by Superhans


Yah I understand the argument at hand. I agree there should be more care to point out the Non Black and White, cut and dry perspective that is being used, including myself.

I have a friend with a record of sex offender. He was 15 with a 13 y/o girlfriend whos parents complained got him arrested and now he has a record. I don't consider that the same as a child molester , in fact I don't see the logic behind his charge at all, but he still has it on the record.

I'm not trying to say what you claim "isn't true", I just said, "if what you say is true" as I don't have the proof myself nor did you provide any for your claim. I was just making a generalized point in reference to what you said. Not trying to call you a liar or anything. I was only trying to point out that there is a scale when considering those who are typically considered "less of a threat" than others beyond just the statistics.

reply to post by Superhans


Statistically that may be true but...

Convicted sex offender Sydney Jerome DeAvila was in and out of the San Joaquin County jail 16 times for a variety of parole violations and other minor offenses over a two-year period. Two weeks after his last jail stay in February 2012, police say he raped and murdered his own grandmother, dumping her in a wheelbarrow the backyard of her home.

Rachel Russell was 73.

CNN watched in mid-June as a convicted sex offender was arrested not long before 7 p.m. on a Tuesday because he had illegally allowed the battery on his tracking bracelet to expire. Less than 24 hours later, Jack Turner, described in court papers as having an "extensive history of sexual violence," was released from the San Joaquin County jail.

Turner estimates that he's been in and out of county jail four or five times during the past month.

"Last week, this week, last week, the week before that, probably the week before that, so they (know) me real well," he said.

She recalled a conversation she had with a paroled child molester that her agents had arrested:

"He says, 'You can do whatever you want to me, I'm only going to be in jail one night, and when I get out, I'm gonna do what I want to make your life miserable.' "

reply to post by mOjOm

I'm not trying to say what you claim "isn't true", I just said, "if what you say is true" as I don't have the proof myself nor did you provide any for your claim. I was just making a generalized point in reference to what you said. Not trying to call you a liar or anything. I was only trying to point out that there is a scale when considering those who are typically considered "less of a threat" than others beyond just the statistics.

I didn't really have to provide "proof" because i was telling you to read the very article we are talking about, which you obviously didn't. These people they are talking about "freeing" are in fact allready on the loose and free, its not like they rape a child and get out early because the state can't hold them- read bro

reply to post by jtma508


Yes, as you can see the battery on his ankle monitor died- and they didn't lock him up for life? My god, what is the world coming to?
Did you read this part?

"So it doesn't matter how bad they are or what's happened. If there are no fresh criminal charges, they are released the next day back into the community."

So with all these CRAZY laws, it looks like people have to actually be charged with something to get put back in prison.

reply to post by Superhans


Stop telling me to read Pal. I'm not your bro! I've read the news reports about this. Read them months ago and made posts on them then in more detail then. This is taking place in my state. I'm aware of the conditions of who is being released and why and the media's bias in presenting it also.

Non of which has to do with my first post in reply to you...

You were saying "It's a good idea" cause they have a low repeat offender rate. My only point was that, while taking into consideration that not all sex offenders equate to actual harmful sexual offenders, attention should be paid into other areas as well.

While a violation isn't a new charge of the same type as their original it's not exactly making sense to arrest them, charge them, then let them go either now is it?? I mean why bother with the arrest and charge just to let them go. Waste time and money. If they are supposed to be locked up again for a violation then lock em up, those are the conditions. Let out some of the folks in there for doing nothing more than self medicating and then maybe it wouldn't be too full to house those who should be housed. I'm not making judgements on what they did or who they are. Our system has conditions for them to follow with punishment as their reminder to follow the rules. Why would they care if those punishments are not enforced??

Originally posted by mOjOm
reply to post by Superhans

 

Stop telling me to read Pal. I'm not your bro!

Chill bro. If you took the time to read as much as you post i wouldn't be having to tell you to read.

I've read the news reports about this.

But did you read the one we are talking about in this thread? Because the way you are posting it looks like you didn't and if you did it looks like you reading comprehension is the issue.

Read them months ago and made posts on them then in more detail then. This is taking place in my state. I'm aware of the conditions of who is being released and why and the media's bias in presenting it also.

Non of which has to do with my first post in reply to you...

Well, when you are posting in a thread it is usually the best bet to post about the subject we are talking about, not something you read months ago that you felt was better.

You were saying "It's a good idea" cause they have a low repeat offender rate. My only point was that, while taking into consideration that not all sex offenders equate to actual harmful sexual offenders, attention should be paid into other areas as well.

Yeah, it is a good idea because they have the lowest rates to repeat. That way less money can be spent on keeping people locked up who statistically are less likely to come back. And since not all sex offenders are harmfull then the fact is they are even LESS dangerous to repeat.

While a violation isn't a new charge of the same type as their original it's not exactly making sense to arrest them, charge them, then let them go either now is it??

Its not just the same charge as the original, its that there is NO new criminal charge to keep them on. Parole violations for letting a battery die is not really a criminal act.

I mean why bother with the arrest and charge just to let them go. Waste time and money. If they are supposed to be locked up again for a violation then lock em up, those are the conditions.

It just gets impractical as parole conditions are already stupid and they are even set higher for sex offenders.

Let out some of the folks in there for doing nothing more than self medicating and then maybe it wouldn't be too full to house those who should be housed.

lol, you have no idea how the system works do you? lol oh the hypocrisy. The people you hear about being in jail for 10 years for a single joint were the people who were locked up for parole violations LOL. As a matter of fact pretty much all these ridiculously long sentences for small amounts of drugs are all parole violations or probation violations. They get high, violate parole and then have to finish up the 10 years they would have done if they didn't get out early. With this new system of not locking up parole violators then you wont get people being locked up for years over a joint.

reply to post by Superhans


That's a naïve point of view. On the surface, yea, he let his GPS batteries die so that he couldn't be tracked. Why do you think these sex offenders: a) have a GPS device to begin with and b) why they intentionally and repeatedly allow the batteries to die (or cut it off)? They may be 'only' parole violations but the implication is severe.