Asserts the libertarian-conservative Republican activist in California: "A new state law will provide for the release of approximately 6,500 prisoners over the next year. Local officials must recalculate how they plan to shorten sentences for good behavior and other credits. These recalculations will lead the state to release eligible offenders early. Offenders convicted of serious, violent or sex crimes are not eligible. The measure will purportedly save the state more than $100 million. California's secretary of corrections called the law a 'win-win situation' because it will cut down on recidivism and allow parole agents to focus attention on more-dangerous former convicts. Sentencing-reform advocates, including Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonpartisan advocacy group that opposes one-size-fits-all sentencing laws, could only shake their heads at such a statement. If the secretary is right, then why were these 6,500 people sentenced to such long terms in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to assess risk and recidivism factors and make those part of the sentencing calculation? Unfortunately, California's mandatory-
No comments:
Post a Comment