10/13/2012
California may set trend easing '3 strikes' law
| SAN FRANCISCO — More than a decade after California set a national trend toward longer sentences for habitual criminals with its three-strikes law, crime in the Golden State is down, prison costs are up - and voters are poised to soften the hardline stance. A California ballot measure that would let some nonviolent offenders out of jail faster is the most high-profile example of what Adam Gelb, a criminal justice expert at the Pew Center, calls "a sea change across the country in attitudes on crime and punishment." While the main financial backer of the campaign to pass the measure is a liberal billionaire, it has drawn support from religious conservatives, fiscal hawks and a broad array of constituencies who have supported "tough on crime" policies in the past. California isn't the first state to revisit policies that have caused an explosion in inmate populations and in some cases jailed people for many decades over relatively minor infractions. In 2007, Texas faced more than $2 billion in new prison costs and chose instead to plow $240 million into alternatives such as treatment-oriented programs for nonviolent offenders.
In Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and New York, mandatory sentencing laws have been rolled back. Other states are revising parole standards and adding programs to let prisoners earn early release, according to a recent Pew study. And a September 2012 study by the Council of State Governments found seven states were succeeding in cutting recidivism rates, by 6 percent to 18 percent, often by focusing on nonprison programs and treatment. Conservative and liberal backing The coalition that is backing the California initiative, known as Proposition 36, illustrates the shifting politics of criminal justice. George Soros, the legendary investor who has backed many liberal causes, has donated $1 million. Conservative leader Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has endorsed it. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP, and district attorneys of San Francisco, Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County - Silicon Valley - are all behind the proposition. More broadly, faith-focused leaders, such as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, are backing more cost-effective approaches to crime and punishment through groups like Right on Crime. "Social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, for the last 30 years, have not applied the same level of scrutiny to the criminal justice area as they have applied to other levels of government," said Craig DeRoche, the former Republican Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives who is now vice president of sentencing reform group Justice Fellowship. Filling prisons with people who are not a threat to society is expensive and often works against integrating felons into a crime-free life, he said. Californians are not getting soft on violent crime: Polls show that an attempt to repeal the death penalty, which is also on the November ballot, has only a slim chance of success. Proposition 36 also is a relatively narrow adjustment to 1994's Proposition 184, known as Three Strikes and You're Out, which lengthened sentences for repeat offenders. The new proposition would let some criminals who have been in jail twice (two strikes) avoid a 25-years-to-life sentence for a third crime if it is judged to be nonviolent and nonserious. Each side uses portraits of prisoners to make its point. Prop 36 supporters describe Shane Taylor, who had two strikes called against him for committing two burglaries 11 days apart when he was 19. His third strike was for possession of 0.14 grams of methamphetamine, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The California District Attorneys Association says inmate Douglas Hall shows how the system keeps dangerous, habitual criminals off the streets. Hall's strikes included a robbery during which he fired a rifle at victims and involuntary manslaughter in which he stabbed the victim 11 times, according to a report by the group. He was convicted of possessing heroin, and because it was a third strike, he was sentenced to 25 years to life. If he were resentenced under Prop 36, his maximum sentence would be seven and a half years, the DAs say. Support in polls In a late-September University of Southern California/Los Angeles Times poll, 66 percent of respondents favored Prop 36. A majority of every single subgroup, divided by political party, race, family status, income, region of the state, ideology and gender favored the measure, according to the mid-September survey of 1,504 people. Opponents of Prop 36 say voters don't understand what they are doing. District attorneys already have significant leeway to show mercy to potential third-strike offenders, and they use it, said Carl Adams, president of the California District Attorneys Association. The new law could tie their hands in pursuing long sentences for some individuals with histories of violence, he said. The reach of the measure is limited, though; only about 2,000 of California's roughly 133,000 state prisoners would be released early if the proposition passes, according to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office, which projects the state could save about $70 million to $90 million annually. Those figures don't compare with the number of inmates who will have to be moved out of the state prison system under a court order aimed at eliminating dangerous overcrowding. The court's target is a population of 110,000 next year, down from more than 160,000 in 2006. "California's criminal justice system is undergoing historical levels of reform," said Sarah Lawrence, a prison system policy researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, Law School. Roughly 25,000 prisoners who would have been in state prisons will be sent instead to local jails by 2015, the state Department of Corrections says. Ideally the local authorities will be better placed to help nonviolent offenders make the transition into their communities, but many counties will struggle to afford the necessary support systems. Crime in California, like the rest of the nation, has dropped dramatically since the early 1990s. State violent crimes are down by more than half and homicides by nearly two-thirds since 1992. Harsher sentencing was probably part of the reason, Lawrence said, but a lot of the most dangerous folks are now behind bars, and there may be better ways to raise public safety. "Your bang for the buck goes down the wider you make the net," she said. If Californians use the ballot box to say they want their state to try to find smarter ways to deal with prisoners, others will listen, said Pew's Gelb. "Precisely because California's three-strikes law is so notorious, any changes in that law will reverberate around the country." (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp |
Lake drained for LA water at center of dust lawsuit
| LOS ANGELES — The powerful Los Angeles Department of Water and Power sued air regulators Friday over demands to control dust from Owens Lake nearly a century after the exploding metropolis siphoned water to quench its growing thirst. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fresno, marks the latest salvo in a bitter back-and-forth over water rights in the arid region that was set in motion in 1913, when Los Angeles began diverting water from the lake 200 miles to its north. The lake went dry in 1926 and has since been plagued with massive dust storms and poor air quality. The scandal created by the diversion project was fodder for the 1974 film "Chinatown," and hard feelings persist in rural Owens Valley, where many locals see the utility as a parasitic neighbor. The aqueduct was dynamited repeatedly after increased pumping in the 1920s combined with a drought to ruin many local farms. Since a 1998 agreement, Los Angeles has spent $1.2 billion to tamp down the dust there as part of the nation's largest dust mitigation project, mainly by putting water back into a 40-square-mile area of the lakebed. The utility is currently working to control dust in another 2-square-mile parcel. But recent orders from the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District to increase the dust mitigation area by 3 square miles are excessive and wasteful, the lawsuit alleges. The utility does not believe dust from the area in question was caused by its century-old actions and says it is not responsible. The utility will honor its commitment and maintain the work it's already done, but it wants a permanent agreement about where its responsibilities end, officials said. The lawsuit, which also names the California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, asks the court for relief from the "systematic and unlawful issuance to the city of dust control orders and fee assessments." The additional dust control project would cost the Department of Water and Power up to $400 million, and ratepayers already pay $90 a year for dust mitigation at Owens Lake, said Ron Nichols, the department's general manager. The city uses 30 billion gallons annually — enough to fill the Rose Bowl each day to overflowing for one year — to keep dust down, he said. "We're pouring that onto the lake, and the issue is, it's just a colossal waste of water," Nichols said. "Our fundamental problem is that we are being singled out because of our customers and Los Angeles being considered as having deep pockets. They think we're the only ones who can pay for dust that we believe is occurring naturally." Ted Schade, the control district's air pollution control officer, said by filing the lawsuit, the city was trying to back out of agreements solidified in 1997 and 2006. He disputed claims that the utility was not responsible for the dust and said the city was breaking its promises to Owens Valley. The utility was testing the limits of its obligations in court, he said, because it hadn't realized the true expense it was facing.
"They had hoped that they would be done spending money and putting water in Owens Lake," Schade said in a phone interview. "We realize that and we realize that the city has limited monetary and water resources and we're willing to work with them — but they just can't say, We're not willing to do more.'" Water experts and environmentalists said the lawsuit was symptomatic of a much bigger issue: An ongoing shortage of cheap water in the state and decades-long tensions between rural areas and urban areas over water rights. "It's sort of been a landlord-tenant relationship," said Steven Erie, director of the urban studies and planning program at the University of California, San Diego. "This is the latest chapter in long-standing and tension-filled history between the two ... and it has affected the discussion and the framing of every agricultural-to-urban transfer in California from then on." The agency argues that expanding dust control means the utility will lean even more on other water sources, which could impact supply in other parts of the state and increase air pollution from pumping operations. Peter Gleick, president of the non-partisan Pacific Institute in Oakland, said the Los Angeles utility could address the Owens Lake demands by further conservation. "It's no longer a question of expanding supply, it's also now a question of reducing inefficient use and reducing inappropriate demand," he said. "Los Angeles has been very good about reducing demand ... but there's a lot more that they could do." Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |