California Three Strikes Victory Brings Hope to Families

"This campaign was not about public safety, fairness or justice. This was about big names, big money, and big lies. This was about angry white men scaring the public."

That was then 66-year-old California Three-Strikes reform activist Teresa Valdez in 2004 reacting to a jaw dropping media blitz featuring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger warning of mass releases of felons that led to a last minute about face by 2 million voters and a sound defeat of Prop 66 an initiative aimed at reforming California much maligned Three Strikes and You're Out law. The ads hit the public days before the election.

Eight years later Valdez woke up on Nov. 7 to find California voters had given her a priceless gift: hope.

By an overwhelming margin, they'd passed Proposition 36 to revise the state's tough Three Strikes Law. The new law prohibits judges from imposing a life sentence on most repeat offenders who commit minor crimes. But it also includes a provision that could result in an early release or shorter sentence for Valdez's son who is serving 53 years to life for possession of a small quantity of marijuana.

"I will not be here to see my son released," a teary eyed Valdez told reporters during a protest rally in 2009. For activists and three strike family members like FILO (Families of Incarcerated Loved Ones) founder and president, Barbara Ellis, the three-strikes law epitomized the mass-imprisonment fever that swept the nation in recent decades. Soaring prison costs and overcrowding have been particularly acute in California, which is currently under a federal court order to cut its prison population, and where three-strikes cases account for about a quarter of all inmates.

Ellis who has since moved to Louisiana was at the forefront of three strikes reform locally and at the state level.

"Oh my God, I'm just so elated and grateful,'" Ellis said. "It's not just my brother who has been incarcerated. I've been incarcerated, waiting for him."

Ellis' journey to reform Three Strikes began more than a decade ago when her brother was sentenced to 25 years to life for a third strike conviction on a charge that normally carries a 1-3 year sentence.

Her brother sits in a state prison clinging to life.

"His body is riddled with disease much of it due to benign neglect," said Ellis. "We've seen fathers taken from their children for life for stealing pizza, mothers locked up for 25 to life for possession of marijuana. Many family members have died or are too sick to celebrate a new life for their family."

Ellis and Valdez aren't the only ones who envision a new life for their family. Clevon Booker is serving 17 years of a life sentence for stealing a credit card in San Bernardino County. His previous strikes also were burglaries.

Booker who has since gotten his GED and formed a prison cooking class was overjoyed by the news.

"It was like waking up and feeling a thousand pounds lighter," said Booker. "It's a blessing for me, my family and a long line of activists and supporters who persevered."

Many elected officials have said privately that the law was unjust and disputed claims that it led to a reduction in California's crime rate. Still most refused to publicly carry the reform banner.

One exception was Los Angeles County district attorney, Steve Cooley, a Republican, who criticized the law when he ran for office in 2000.

"DA Cooley did the right thing when others turned a blind eye to years of injustice," said Ellis. "He knew this law was not only financially burdensome but grossly unfair," she said.

"All eyes are on California. California started this trend, as it starts so many trends, and people are really looking to see what people in the state are going to do with the three strikes law," Adam Gelb, Director of Public Policy Safety Research at the Pew Center on the States, said.

Gelb says other states have also started to temper sentencing laws.

"Those states may be willing to revisit what they've done and maybe go a little further and the other half of the states that haven't approached this issue in a serious way yet probably are going to say, 'Maybe now it's time,' "he said.

via The Washington Informer

Breaking the Addiction to Incarceration: Weekly Highlights

By Alex Stamm, ACLU Center for Justice at 9:27am

Today, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. With over 2.3 million men and women living behind bars, our imprisonment rate is the highest it’s ever been in U.S. history. And yet, our criminal justice system has failed on every count: public safety, fairness and cost-effectiveness. Across the country, the criminal justice reform conversation is heating up. Each week, we feature our some of the most exciting and relevant news in overincarceration discourse that we’ve spotted from the previous week. Check back weekly for our top picks.

Colorado, Washington and Several Michigan Cities Advance Sensible Drug Policy
Voters in Colorado and Washington made history when they took a stand for sensible drug law reform, choosing to legalize small quantities of marijuana for adults. Arrests for possession of small amounts of marijuana constitute one of the most common drug-related points of entry into the already bloated criminal justice system and disproportionately target people of color despite the fact that white people use marijuana at higher rates. We’re thrilled that Alison Holcomb, Campaign Director for New Approach Washington, will be returning to her position as Drug Policy Director at the ACLU of Washington where she will work on implementing the new law.

In Michigan, several cities saw successful marijuana reform, with Detroit, Grand Rapids and Flint voting to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana and Ypsilanti voting to make it the lowest law enforcement priority.

This development signals a major shift in public attitudes about criminal justice: Americans are tired of laws that clog our criminal justice system with nonviolent offenders. You can read more about the ACLU’s support of the state measures in our blog post.

Massachusetts Opens the Door to Medical Marijuana
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, voters insisted that patients’ ability to access the most effective medicine should trump outdated political arguments and affirmatively chose to legalize the humanitarian use of medical marijuana. The ACLU of Massachusetts is proud to have supported this measure to legalize the humanitarian use of medical marijuana. For more information, read the ACLU of Massachusetts’ press release.

Arkansas Voters Narrowly Reject Medical Marijuana
By a margin of 51% to 49%, Arkansas voters narrowly declined to become the first Southern state to approve the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Although the result is unfortunate, the extremely narrow margin is cause for celebration, especially considering that polling predicted a much wider margin: 54% to 38%, according to this article from last month.

New Mexico Protects the Constitutional Right to Counsel
61% of New Mexico voters approved a state constitutional amendment to protect the right to counsel by establishing the Public Defender Department as an independent state agency. The amendment authorizes creation of an independent commission that would appoint the state's chief public defender, who would then oversee the department, freeing indigent defense representation from the political process. Information about the initiative can be found here.

California Keeps the Death Penalty
With sadness we note that California’s Prop 34, which would have replaced the death penalty in that state with life without parole, was defeated 53% to 47%. While the loss is disappointing, the percent in favor suggests that efforts to change public opinion are working. In 1978, when Californians voted to reinstate the death penalty, support for the death penalty topped 70%. As recently as September, polls showed only 38% favoring the repeal. Though it fell short, the amazing efforts of our colleagues advocating for Prop 34 demonstrated that a concerted public education campaign can move voters. We are proud of our role in this important fight, and will continue to work to abolish the death penalty across the nation. Natasha Minsker, Campaign Manager of Yes on 34, will be returning to the ACLU of Northern California as its Death Penalty Policy Director. A blog post we wrote before the election is here.

Californians Choose Sentencing Reform
Voters in California solidly approved Prop 36, which limits the state’s 3 Strikes Law by removing the possibility of a life sentence for most nonviolent third strikes. The success of this measure demonstrates that the public is ready to embrace sentencing reform, and we are hopeful that the future will bring further reforms in California and beyond. For more about states that have begun making smart reforms, read our report, “Smart Reform is Possible.”

Oklahoma Voters Approve Parole Reform
Until Tuesday, Oklahoma was the only state that still required the governor to approve every parole. But voters passed Question 762, which removes the governor from the parole process for persons convicted of nonviolent crimes. The cost-effective measure will increase Oklahoma’s parole rate, which is currently one of the nation’s lowest. At the Oklahoma Gazette, the ACLU of Oklahoma’s new legal director Brady Henderson talks about why the ACLU supported the measure.

For a round-up of this year’s results, The Crime Report has produced aninteractive map with information on ballot measures and referendums in 17 states related to criminal justice policy.

Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

via ACLU

Federal budget standoff could hurt California economy

SACRAMENTO — Just as California's finances seem to be getting back on track, experts warn that the federal budget standoff could delay the state's economic recovery and cost it $11 billion in tax revenues.

If President Obama and Congress fail to reach a deal by the end of the year, the resulting tax hikes and spending cuts could send the country into another recession. California tax revenues could lag nearly 6% over the next year and a half, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, nearly wiping out any gains from Proposition 30, the tax-hike plan pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown and approved by voters this month.

California also would receive less federal funding, and the state could end up wrestling with more deficits at a time when the nonpartisan analyst had forecast surpluses.

"This would be a bad turn of events," said Jerry Nickelsburg, senior economist at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. "It would delay the recovery in California."

And the consequences would reverberate throughout the state, from Sacramento down to local parks and police departments.

On the federal chopping block are Justice Department grants that help hire police officers. So is funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for community programs and affordable housing.

"With all the other cuts that we're making, it's something we're definitely going to feel," said Jennifer Whiting, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities.

In the last year, $24.4 million in federal money was used to hire 119 police officers in California, including 25 in Los Angeles.

Local governments also received $482.6 million for community development and affordable housing. Glendale, for example, used its grants for after-school programs, increasing energy efficiency and renovating a park with a basketball court and picnic area.

If the country goes over the "fiscal cliff," $1.2 trillion could be cut from the federal budget over the next nine years, according to a September report from Obama's Office of Management and Budget. About half of that money is defense spending, some of which flows to contractors in California. The Aerospace Industries Assn. has projected that the federal trigger cuts could cost California 126,000 jobs.

But California is less at risk than some other states because it doesn't rely as much on defense spending and federal funds that could get sliced next year, according to the Pew Center on the States. The bigger concern, analysts said, is the potential for an economic downturn.

The country could slide into a new recession in the first half of next year if the federal budget situation isn't resolved.

In California, where unemployment has remained in the double digits, more jobs would be lost. At the same time, a typical four-person family in the state could see its tax bill increase by more than $3,200, according to the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Democratic and Republican leaders have said they expect to reach a deal to avert the crisis. The primary sticking point has been taxes on the wealthy. Obama wants to allow some of the tax cuts originally signed by President George W. Bush to expire, while Republicans have been hostile to the idea.

Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics, a financial consulting firm in Los Angeles, said the debate over the fiscal cliff had become overwrought.

"Would it cause a recession? Sure," he said. "But I bet it would be a mild one."

Even so, California budget estimates already have proved too optimistic this year. Tax revenue has fallen slightly short of expectations, and the state has saved much less than it had hoped to from the closing of local redevelopment agencies.

"We're just barely keeping our heads above water," said Gabriel Petek, who tracks California finances for Standard & Poor's.

One Million Kids in California Are Uninsured, and Most Qualify for Subsidized Programs

More than one million children in California do not have health insurance coverage, according to a report released this month by the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.

The figure represents around 11 percent of the states minors. That rate, 1.5 percent higher than the national average, is bested by states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas, which are among the 38 states with a rate below 11 percent.

But before the small-government types throw tomatoes at California's health policy, there is a notable number from the report to consider: 76 percent of uninsured children are eligible for either Medi-Cal or Healthy Families, the state's two government subsidized health care programs.

Which suggests not a policy problem, but an implementation problem: California has done a poor job of bringing it's programs to the people.

As the recession has pushed people out of work, Medi-Cal's role has grown. Families with children 18 years old or younger are eligible for Medi-Cal if their income is at or below the federal poverty level, and eligible Healthy Families if their income is less than 2.5 times the poverty level.

In 2007, about 54 percent of children were covered through their parent's employer. Last year, that number dropped to 49 percent. Over that stretch, the percentage of kids covered through Medi-Cal or Healthy Families has jumped from around 31 percent to nearly 38 percent. Still, the rate of uninsured children kept steady at about 11 percent.

According to the study, the children without insurance "are three times more likely to forgo or delay care," and 18 percent of them have never been to the dentist. More than half of uninsured children has a parent with a full-time job. Two-thirds of them are Latino.

Medi-Cal coverage is expected to expand in 2014, when the Affordable Care Act hits full stride and the federal government sends states money to cover more low-income people. That year, 91 percent of uninsured children will be eligible for subsidized health care.

The trick, though, is translating eligibility into coverage.

via SF Weekley

Crime and punishment in California

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's data show that people serving one, two or three years have the same recidivism rates. Above: California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster is seen in 2007. (Los Angeles Times)

By James Austin

November 28, 2012

After decades of prison planning work in California and across the country, I've seen two prevailing assumptions about crime and punishment finally begin to crack amid years of real-world testing.

The first is that prisons are the primary way to reduce crime. The second is that law enforcement will not support changes that reduce incarceration. Both of these changing perceptions are converging now in California, just when the state must make major changes to protect its public safety and fiscal security.

First, some context. California has been experiencing its lowest crime rates since 1960, according to the latest statewide data (from 2011). This drop is partly due to demographics (an aging population) and other external factors, but improvements in policing procedures and better coordination among law enforcement agencies also play a critical role.

In 1960, California's prison population was less than 22,000. If you applied that year's incarceration rate to today's crime rate and total population, the state would have only 52,000 prisoners, well under the current state prison population of about 130,000. This dramatic rise is because the state, over the decades, dramatically increased the number of people it sent to prison and the length of their imprisonment.

However, a growing body of science shows that prison-only approaches may feel good initially — and be safe politically — but an overreliance on incarceration ultimately can make things worse. In other words, there is limited scientific evidence that prison reduces crime, or that longer prison terms reduce recidivism or crime rates.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's data show that people serving one, two or three years have the same recidivism rates. We also know that the vast majority of people arrested in California are not recently released prisoners. Meanwhile, New York and New Jersey have significantly reduced their prison populations and continued to lower their crime rates.

That's good news for California because in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California must reduce its badly crowded prison population. The legislative result was public safety realignment, which moved responsibility for people convicted of nonviolent, non-sex, non-serious crimes from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation officers.

More than a year into this landmark approach, some counties are seeing previous or new programs (alternatives to incarceration) bear fruit, but many are also struggling with overcrowding and added costs. This has forced some sheriffs to release people they otherwise would send to jail or state prison.

Making matters worse, the state will not be able to meet the federal deadline and may have to reduce the number of people in state prisons by as many as 15,000 more by the end of 2013. To confront this challenge, a federal panel of judges asked me to work with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to develop a plan that will safely reduce the prison population without jeopardizing the low crime rate.

It can be done, but the real task will be the politics, not the science, of reducing a huge, expensive prison population. Fortunately, some leaders in law enforcement are stepping forward to help policymakers make necessary changes.

Take, for example, the role they played in the recent passage of Proposition 36. Voters — by a 2-1 margin — passed the initiative, which revises the state's 1994 three-strikes law so that only violent felonies will count as a third strike that would lock someone up for 25 years to life. According to election-night polling by Californians for Safety and Justice, voters wanted to reform three strikes for a variety of reasons, including its excessive sentences for petty crimes and to reserve prison space for more dangerous crimes.

However, 7 in 10 voters supported the change because of its fiscal impact. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office predicts that the adjustment made by Proposition 36 will save more than $100 million a year. The percentage of California's general fund dedicated to corrections has risen, from 2.9% in 1981 to 10.5% last year.

But attempts to reform the three-strikes law and other justice policies have used fiscal argument before — unsuccessfully. I believe the key to Proposition 36's success was support from district attorneys in L.A., San Francisco and San Jose, as well as police leaders like LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. They are on the front lines of law enforcement, and their perspectives carry great weight with voters.

We have more work to do. Reducing the justice system's costs without compromising public safety starts with the acknowledgment that the state has for too long punished people beyond its means, and too often those punishments did not fit the crime, or ultimately improve public safety. Fortunately, there are models in practice that counties can implement or expand for immediate impact.

San Francisco, Contra Costa and Santa Cruz are among many counties using split sentences — the person spends part of the time on supervised probation and the rest incarcerated — to ensure their jail populations do not increase post-realignment. Contra Costa County has shortened probation terms (18 months or less versus three- to five-year terms), which has produced significantly lower recidivism rates and probation caseloads.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has launched a comprehensive rehabilitation program to reduce jail violence and recidivism, and soon will begin a pilot pretrial program that monitors low-risk offenders in the community as they await trial, instead of having them sit in crowded jails.

These approaches and others show that we can safely reduce jail and prison populations, but only if brave policymakers and leaders in law enforcement continue to test the faltering assumptions that prison is the first or only answer to crime, and that law enforcement is not open to change.

James Austin, president of the JFA Institute, is a former executive with the Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at George Washington University.

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

Only 31% of California students are physically fit

For the second year in a row, California students have tested relatively low in a series of statewide physical fitness tests, the state Department of Education announced Thursday.

About 31% of students received healthy scores in all six of the tested areas, State Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson said in a statement.

"When we can call fewer than one out of three of our kids physically fit, we know we have a tremendous public health challenge on our hands," said Torlakson, a longtime cross-country coach. "It affects more than their health — study after study has demonstrated the very clear link between physical fitness and academic achievement."

The fitness score dropped to 31% last year, after years of steady improvement, the study’s results showed. About 1.3 million fifth-, seventh- and ninth-graders were tested. Of those, only 31% were able to score in what state officials call a "healthy fitness zone."

"While I am glad their fitness levels improve as they make their way through school, we owe it to California’s kids to give them more opportunities for exercise, along with better access to healthy foods and clean, fresh water," Torlakson said.

Torlakson’s office is continuing to push a year-old initiative to promote healthy choices in schools.

via LATIMES.com

California's budget shows signs of a surplus, analyst says

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. -- The state's fiscal analyst said Wednesday that California's long-tattered budget is on the verge of producing surpluses, but he cautioned that Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers must first avoid a spending spree.

The improved outlook comes after voters approved two tax initiatives last week, and the California economy and housing market showed signs of perking up. State leaders have also cut programs in recent years.

It was the nonpartisan legislative analyst's most optimistic fiscal forecast since the dot-com boom 12 years ago. It shows a relatively small $1.9 billion deficit through June 2014 against a $97.7 billion general fund, followed by annual surpluses that grow beyond $9 billion in 2017-18.

"For the first time since about 2001, we actually show us being in the black," Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor said. "This is a dramatic turnaround."

Those numbers, however, rely on assumptions that few Capitol veterans expect to hold – namely that Democratic lawmakers will keep programs at current spending levels after years of forcing allies to accept cuts and no cost-of-living increases. It also assumes steady economic growth and no broad federal tax hikes or deep spending cuts.

Spending demands are already hitting Sacramento. University of California officials made clear Wednesday they want more money next year, warning that tuition hikes may occur otherwise. Social service advocates have clamored to restore programs such as dental care for low-income adults in Medi-Cal.

Brown said in a statement that he intends to "continue to exercise fiscal discipline and pay down debt." But Democratic lawmakers will have a two-thirds supermajority, gaining the ability to increase taxes and fees on their own as well as greater leverage in negotiations with the governor.

"It's difficult to imagine anyone on the short end of those types of budget cuts accepting them without a fight," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "If you're a legislator who has a battalion of interest groups outside your door trying to drag you in one direction and the governor on the phone trying to convince you to hold firm, it's not a fun place to be."

In the immediate budget cycle, the state faces a $1.9 billion deficit through June 2014, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. Just one year ago, it predicted a $13 billion gap over a comparable time period, and a $25 billion shortfall the year before that.

Voters last week approved Brown's tax initiative, Proposition 30, to increase income taxes on top earners and sales taxes by a quarter-cent on the dollar to generate $6 billion annually through 2018-19. They passed a separate initiative, Proposition 39, to permanently raise taxes on some corporations by $1 billion a year.

Despite those new taxes, the analyst's office believes the state faces a short-term deficit largely because it will not receive about $1.8 billion that Brown expected from eliminating redevelopment agencies. The analyst also says state leaders can't use $400 million in cap-and-trade revenues to plug the budget, and California faces higher than predicted wildfire costs.

The immediate deficit would have been higher had Brown's Department of Finance not discovered a surprising amount of additional money this month. Finance officials said they revised their accounting of past revenues – mostly income taxes – to reveal an additional $1.4 billion available for the budget.

That money was not reported to the Legislative Analyst's Office until the afternoon of June 6 – the same day voters approved Proposition 30. Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said his department found the money as part of an annual review that assigns revenues to past budget years.

The legislative analyst's fiscal forecast serves as the unofficial kickoff to the budget season. Brown will set things in motion when he releases his 2013-14 budget in January.

Taylor hinted Wednesday the governor may believe he faces no deficit at all if he uses a higher estimate of redevelopment funds and cap-and-trade revenues.

As state revenues increase, K-12 schools and community colleges will receive more money under a funding formula in the state constitution. Schools may use the money to hire additional teachers, increase salaries or restore subject matter that had been cut.

But Taylor said the state's finances are not yet strong enough to enable similar expansion in public programs such as Medi-Cal, universities and in-home care – all of which lack the mandated spending increases that K-14 schools have.

"I think it's a little bit of a tale of two budgets there," Taylor said.

As lawmakers and Brown enjoy an influx in revenues and possibly surpluses in years to come, the analyst's office offered advice that mirrored the wisdom commonly dispensed to consumers by personal finance experts. It suggested that state leaders build an emergency reserve, pay off debt, devote more cash to retirement costs and be very selective about buying back programs.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D–Sacramento, told The Bee's editorial board Wednesday that he wants to do all of that, though he didn't commit to how he would divvy up the budget.

"Obviously we're not going to be able to reinvest dramatically in year one and year two or in year three," Steinberg said. "Obviously we're not going to be able to make up for all the losses that have occurred in education, higher education, public safety and health and human services in the short run."

But Steinberg added that he wants to pursue a "medium- to long-term investment plan" that would devote funds to a rainy-day fund, program restorations and paying off debt.

The legislative analyst's forecast relies on a steady economic recovery in California. Its projections show the state unemployment rate dropping from 10.6 percent in 2012 to 6.7 percent in 2017. It also assumes that personal income will grow by between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent annually.

Taylor warned that the state and national economy could suffer if federal leaders do not avert the so-called fiscal cliff in which taxes increase and spending cuts would occur. His projections assume that President Barack Obama and Congress will reach a deal that avoids the most severe impacts.

Posted on Thu, Nov. 15, 2012 06:20 AM

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/15/3918200/californias-budget-shows-signs.html#storylink=cpy

New ethnic voters fortify California Democratic majorities

Democrats' overwhelming victory in California on election day was driven by Latino, Asian and African American voters, who made up a record 40% of the state’s electorate, according to exit poll data.

Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said that despite the fact that non-Hispanic white voters favored GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney over President Obama by eight percentage points, Obama carried the state by 20 points, rooted in his strong support among the state’s ethnic voters.

Proposition 30, the tax-hike plan backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, also emerged victorious because of strong support from non-white voters. “White non-Hispanics divided their votes evenly ... [but] ethnic voters collectively supported it by 20 points, giving it its entire margin of victory,” DiCamillo said.

The data is an ominous sign for California Republicans, who hold no statewide elected offices and have seen their numbers fall below one-third in both the state Senate and Assembly.

Since 1994, the state has added about 3.5 million new voters. Roughly 2 million of those have been Latino and 1 million are Asian Americans, according to numbers from the Field Poll. Reaching those new voters will be a challenge for the state GOP as they lick their wounds from their latest electoral defeat.

These new voters seem to have a different view about the role of government in the lives of its citizens than many of their white counterparts.

While white voters were evenly divided about whether the government should do more to solve the nation’s problems, ethnic voters, by a 2-1 margin, believed that government should be doing more, network exit polling found.

ALSO:

Skelton: Gov. Jerry Brown is on a roll

Poll: Voters divided over easing state's environmental laws

Richard Bloom's small lead grows over Betsy Butler for Assembly

-- Anthony York in Sacramento

Photo: Voters cast their ballots in the 2012 election at the Sue B. Dance Company in Altadena. Credit: Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times

VIA LA TIMES

California voted ‘yes’ on Prop 35; experts, police and sex workers disagree on impact

On November 6, Californians passed Proposition 35, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, which will increase the penalties for convicted human traffickers, mandate law enforcement training in identifying and handling trafficking victims, and require convicted traffickers to disclose their Internet service providers, screen names and email addresses to law enforcement. Proposition 35 also changed California’s evidence code, which regulates evidence that can be used in court, to prevent a trafficking victim’s sexual history from being discussed in a courtroom when he or she sues their traffickers.

Backers argued that Proposition 35 would protect women and children who are being forced into prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation and allow victims—especially children—to confront their abusers in court. “When I drafted this, I wanted to do two things: I wanted to recognize the severity of the crime and I also wanted to recognize the victims as victims, not as criminals,” said Daphne Phung, the initiative’s author and the founder of California Against Slavery, a nonprofit group that was a major proponent of the Yes on 35 campaign.

But now that voters have passed Proposition 35 by a whopping 81 percent, there is little agreement among law enforcement agencies, legal experts and sex workers about how the initiative will affect adults who voluntarily choose to work in the sex industry, especially with regard to the owners of indoor places of work, like brothels, escort services and massage parlors.

During the campaign, sex workers, as well as some anti-trafficking organizations and civil rights groups, opposed Proposition 35, citing concerns like the mandatory disclosure of Internet habits and identities for convicted traffickers. The day after it passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the Internet disclosure provision.

Read the rest of the story from Titania Kumeh and Samantha Masunaga at Oakland North.Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

via SFGATE

Judge rejects bid to halt California high-speed rail project

A Sacramento County judge has rejected a bid by agricultural interests to temporarily halt California's bullet train project in the Central Valley until a lawsuit can be decided.

After a three-hour hearing, Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley on Friday evening declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the California High-Speed Rail Authority that was sought by farm bureaus in Merced and Madera counties.

Filed earlier this year, the lawsuit alleges that the rail authority failed to conduct thorough environmental reviews as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and violated state open-meeting laws related to the analysis.

Frawley ruled that the cost of delaying the project outweighed the risk to farmers and others along the route whose property would be affected. He also said that it was not clear to him at this point in the case that the authority had failed to meet the standards of the environmental quality act.

The judge further noted that construction of the project was not expected to begin until after three pending lawsuits against the authority are decided.

If granted, the order would have prevented the rail authority from working on the route between Merced and Fresno, one of the first planned sections of the project. Construction of the first phase is scheduled to begin in July.

Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, said the decision was disappointing and a setback for the case. She vowed that the lawsuit would continue. Further hearings are scheduled for April.

[For the record, 1:31 p.m.: An earlier version of this post misspelled the first name of Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, as Anaja.]

ALSO:

Seal Beach salon reopens after shooting massacre

Connector between 5 and 134 freeways reopens after fatal crash

Family of man slain by L.A. County deputies to request FBI inquiry

-- Dan Weikel

via LATimes.com

3 strikes reform brings hope to some inmates

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- The passage of Proposition 36 this week signals a new cost-conscious view of crime and punishment. Revising the state's three strikes law means thousands of prison inmates could soon be back on the streets.

With the help of California Watch, part of the Center for Investigative Reporting, we hear from three inmates awaiting their freedom.

Tuesday night was a chance to celebrate for supporters of Prop 36, the initiative to scale back California's three strikes law.

"Usually when people go to the polls, they are voting to increase penalties; this is one of the few times actually in U.S. history where they've said, 'No, it's too harsh,'" Prop 36 author Michael Romano said.

No one was paying more attention to the vote than one group of prisoners at San Quentin Prison. Called Hope for Strikers, the group has been meeting for many years to bring awareness to the three strikes law.

"My name is Eddie Griffin and I got 27 years to life for possession of cocaine," inmate Eddie Griffin said.

"My third strike is burglary of an unoccupied dwelling; it was my first relapse after being clean and sober for almost 10 years," inmate Joey Mason said.

"My third strike was instigating a fight; it was a non-violent, non-serious felony, and they gave me 25 to life," inmate Sajad Sakoor said.

Sakoor has already served 16 years behind bars. He is one of the 9,000 third strikers in California's prisons, and one of the 3,000 who will be eligible for a rehearing because of Prop 36.

"This is my second time in prison and my first two strikes came from one case when I was 18 years old, two burglaries," Sakoor said.

Now, a judge could decide to remove Sakoor's life sentence.

"If the life sentence gets taken off, then chances are that I may end up going home because I have so much time already in," Sakoor said.

Sutter County District Attorney Carl Adams opposed Prop 36.

"California voted for three strikes because they were tired of this idea of people going to prison, getting out, committing another felony, victimizing somebody else, going back, getting out, creating another victim, and so on and so on," he said.

Romano says California's three strikes law will still remain the toughest in the country.
"It is really trying to address what we think are the most excessive sentences in the country, close to in the country's history," he said.

California is one of 27 states with a three strikes law. Before Prop 36, it was the only state to impose life sentences for non-violent third strikes.

Romano says this week's vote will help reduce some of the strain in California's penal system.

"It makes sure that our prisons are not overcrowded with people who don't deserve to be there and also helps people who have been sentenced to life for very minor, nonviolent conduct," he said.

Since the three strikes law passed in 1994, crime has dropped in California, but it has also dropped in states without three strikes. As state spending on prisons has skyrocketed, politicians across the country are questioning whether the benefits of laws like three strikes outweigh the costs.

"We need a safe country, I want to live in a safe neighborhood, everybody does, but we ought to take a look at this corrections system and say is this really the way to do it," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said. "Is there another way to do it, which could save us money and still keep us safe? I think there might be."

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Durbin is leading a broad review of us prison policies.

"I believe that voters want to make sure that those in government are spending their money well and not wasting it," he said. "I also think that they don't want America to be known as a country that does inhumane things to its prisoners and, and incarcerates them unfairly, for any lengthy period of time that can't be justified."

This week's vote signals a new direction for California, which was at the forefront of introducing laws like three strikes.

"All eyes are on California here; California started this trend, as it starts so many trends, and people are really looking to see what people in the state are going to do with the three strikes law," Adam Gelb, Director of Public Policy Safety Research at the Pew Center on the States, said.

Gelb says other states have also started to temper sentencing laws.

"Those states may be willing to revisit what they've done and maybe go a little further and the other half of the states that haven't approached this issue in a serious way yet probably are going to say, 'Maybe now it's time,'" he said.

Meanwhile, for thousands of California inmates like Sakoor, Prop 36 may now offer a chance at a fresh start.

"I'm glad that the people of California are having a second chance to take a second look at this; I'm hopeful, I'm very hopeful," Sakoor said.

via ABCNEWS

Health roundup: Meatless Mondays are official in LA

8:53AM EST November 12. 2012 - Your Monday morning health roundup:

Meatless in LA: If you are reading this over breakfast in Los Angeles, you better put down the bacon -- at least if you want to stay in line with a city-wide "Meatless Monday" effort just endorsed by the city council. Participation is voluntary, of course, but backers of the international movement say that going vegetarian at least one day a week is good for health and the environment. Los Angeles is the largest city in the nation to join the campaign. (NBC News)

Trouble with zippers: More than 16,000 adults each year show up in U.S. emergency rooms with genital injuries caused by products ranging from bicycles to zippers, a new study shows. Men suffer more of these mishaps than women, researchers say. (ABC News)

Poison mushrooms: Two elderly women have died and four other people have been hospitalized after eating poison mushrooms accidentally served in a soup at a California assisted living facility. California health officials are repeating warnings that it's not safe to eat mushrooms grown in the wild. (Associated Press)

STORY: Study examines infection, pregnancy, autism risk

STORY: Arthritis pain can turn up in surprising places

Today's talker: Can you eat your way to better body odor? The makers of a new edible deodorant suggest that you can -- and that eating rose-flavored Deo Perfume Candy will "leave your skin with a beautiful rose fragrance." But scientists are skeptical, ABC News reports. The whole popular idea that sweat smells like what you eat -- even if it's garlic or curry -- is untested, the experts say.

via USA TODAY

Mental health prevention a wise investment

Unlike any other state in the nation, California voters asked for an investment in mental health prevention and early intervention strategies when they passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, in 2004. So when the news media fails to present these evidence-based programs as legitimate investments, it demonstrates that this influential industry is out of touch with what Californians want, which is to give our state a chance to save lives.

Critics who dismiss efforts to eliminate the stigma associated with mental health challenges ignore the facts: Intervening at the first sign of symptoms offers the best opportunity to make a significant, positive difference in both immediate and long-term outcomes for people affected by mental health issues.

Yet studies show fewer than 30 percent of people with mental health challenges seek treatment. Fear of being labeled with a mental illness is a significant barrier that prevents people from seeking help.

Far from being just "feel good" programs as some contend, stigma reduction efforts can save lives. In fact, the U.S. surgeon general has identified reducing the stigma associated with mental illness and treatment as a key priority for the nation in addressing the public health crisis of suicide.

Of the individuals who die by suicide, 90 percent have a diagnosable mental health disorder. Too few connect with services that can change the course of their lives. On average, nine Californians die by suicide each day.

Prop. 63 enables California to make a significant difference on a statewide scale to improve awareness of the risks and behaviors associated with suicide and to equip friends and family members to connect loved ones with help. Reaching college students with mental health prevention and early intervention strategies is one part of Prop. 63's multipronged approach.

A multilayered, statewide stigma-reduction program challenges the negative stereotypes and discrimination - too often perpetuated by the news and entertainment media - which prevent people from accessing the mental health services they need.

Having nearly died of suicide as a college student, I know firsthand these proven strategies are worth California's investment.

As required by the law, the vast majority of Prop. 63 dollars are spent on delivering successful, innovative community mental health services to those with severe illness. At the same time, voters recognized prevention and early intervention strategies are so important that the law sets aside 20 percent of funding to prevent more people from reaching mental health crisis.

Any doctor will tell you that preventing heart disease is a better solution than waiting until the first heart attack. The same prescription applies here: Prop. 63's prevention and early intervention efforts meet California voters' demand to improve and save more lives.

Kevin Hines is a national mental health advocate and author of "Memoir: The Art of Living Mentally Well - Most Days - the Kevin Hines story."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Mental-health-prevention-a-wise-investment-4028399.php#ixzz2C2YurpFd