A Spotlight on SCBA Affiliates - Sacramento County Bar Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 SACRAMENTO LAWYER JULY/AUGUST 2011
Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed “realignment” of state and local responsibilities for lowlevel felons (non-violent, non-sex offense and non-Three Strike cases) is a creative plan, reflecting the Governor’s flair for thinking outside the bureaucratic box. If adequately funded, the realignment could significantly improve California’s criminal justice system by providing effective community sentencing options to reduce both recidivism and needless prison commitments. However, the realignment currently proposes to put courts in the business of conducting parole hearings. This would mean increased state costs and a heavy draw against already insufficient judicial resources. The court’s central responsibility – trying cases – would suffer. Civil litigants in particular would feel this impact. Part of the still gestating 2011- 2012 Budget, the realignment legislation (AB 109; Stats. 2011, c. 15), declares: Criminal justice policies that rely on building and operating more prisons to address community safety concerns are not sustainable, and will not result in improved public safety. California must reinvest its criminal justice resources to support community-based corrections programs and evidence-based practice that will achieve improved public safety returns on this state’s substantial investment in its criminal justice system. (Pen. Code § 17.5.) In short, the Governor proposes greater use of community sentencing options proven effective in reducing Court News UPDATES FROM THE PJ: Criminal Justice Realignment: Good News and Bad (A Political Commentary) By Judge Steve White, Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court. recidivism for low-level offenders, instead of costly prison commitments. The Community Corrections Partnership (Pen. Code § 1238 et seq.) would thus provide state funding to Criminal justice policies that rely on building and operating more prisons to address community safety concerns are not sustainable, and will not result in improved public safety. local probation departments for greater use of “evidence-based” programs – programs demonstrated to reduce recidivism when ordered based upon an assessment of each offender. This would be very important for Sacramento County, where the Board of Supervisors has drastically cut funding for probation supervision. Sacramento County’s Chief Probation Officer recently advised the court that these cuts prevent probation from performing its statutory duties. Nearly 25,000 offenders currently on probation in Sacramento County are unsupervised. No one is monitoring them to assure compliance with court- ordered conditions of probation: no visits by probation officers, no searches, and no drug tests. The Sacramento County Grand Jury concluded that these budget cuts have “devastated” Sacramento’s probation department, leaving 96 percent of adult probationers and 86 percent of juvenile offenders in our county unsupervised. The Board of Supervisors’ decision to virtually eliminate probation supervision in Sacramento County severely limits the court’s sentencing options. Assume the court is sentencing a young person convicted of a residential burglary committed to support a serious drug habit. The court has two choices: grant probation with no supervision, or send the defendant to prison where he will receive no drug treatment or job training. Neither option protects the public’s safety, or efficiently uses taxpayer dollars. By funding community corrections programs successful in addressing substance abuse and antisocial behavior, the Community Corrections Partnership will provide courts more and better options which should reduce recidivism and save taxpayers millions of dollars. That is the good news. Unfortunately, as part of shifting low-level felonies to community programs, the realignment also proposes that courts become the new “parole authority,” responsible for conducting parole revocation hearings, determining discharge from parole, issuing warrants for parole violations, modifying conditions of parole and even hearing challenges to denial of good Continued on page 13 JULY/AUGUST 2011 SACRAMENTO LAWYER 7
Page 1 and 2: July/August 2011 www.sacbar.org SAC
Page 3 and 4: SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION M
Page 5: often technical and nuanced. Indeed
Page 9 and 10: jurors during voir dire, they often
Page 12 and 13: Main Library 813 Sixth Street, Firs
Page 14: The Beginning: In 2008, a group of
Page 17 and 18: ights lawyer Dale Minami, started t
Page 19 and 20: Appeal, Justice Kathleen Butz, Just
Page 21 and 22: Director of the Markkula Center for
Page 23 and 24: Professional Creative Business Port
Page 25 and 26: frank discourse on this issue with
Page 27 and 28: ties keep her in San Francisco duri
Page 29: of Directors or simply seeking to b
Page 32 and 33: joined the firm’s Sacramento offi
Page 34 and 35: In Community Service VLSP Partnersh
Page 36: SACRAMENTO COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION M

A Spotlight on SCBA Affiliates - Sacramento County Bar Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?