AB 109 Assitance, Fontana, CA

AB 109 has impacted every community in the State of California by transferring the burden of care for prison releases from the state to the local communities. In response to this, the Fontana Police Department has recently started an AB 109 Support Team which will focus on providing resources to the newly released inmates with the goal of rehabilitation and a reduction in recidivism.

AB 109 release individuals need access to several resources including, but not limited to:
Workforce/Job Development, agencies willing to work with convicted felons, temporary
housing, food, medical benefits, drug abuse/alcohol counseling, and many more. It is imperative that these individuals be given access to these types of resources early on because delayed access can result in new crimes being committed and the failure of their reintegration into society.

We are going to hold orientation meetings every 2nd and 4th Monday of every month, from 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM, where vendors and community assistance program personnel can send representatives to meet with this at risk population and provide their much needed services. The first meeting is going to be September 10th at 16779 Spring St in the City of Fontana.

Thank you in advance for your participation and willingness to provide services to these men and women who do desperately need your assistance. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Fontana Police Department’s AB 109 Support Team please call or email Officer Ferreira or Officer Weiske at:

Officer Ferreira                   Officer Weiske
909-350-7759                     909-356-7157
jferreira@fontana.org         nweiske@fontana.org

Proposition 37 in California: A high-stakes food fight

By Dana Hull

dhull@mercurynews.com

California's crowded November ballot includes white-hot measures to raise taxes, amend the state's Three Strikes Law and repeal the death penalty. But a once-obscure measure requiring labels on genetically engineered food is quickly emerging as one of the most expensive, high-stakes showdowns on the 11-measure ballot.

If Proposition 37 passes, California would become the first state in the nation to require new labels on a host of food products commonly found on grocery store shelves, from breakfast cereals to sodas to tofu.

Proponents, largely big natural food companies and consumers who are passionate about organic food, have raised $2.8 million as of Thursday, according to campaign finance records filed with the California Secretary of State's Office. Scores of individuals have made $100 donations, but most of the money is coming from organic businesses such as Lundberg Family Farms, Nature's Path Foods and Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. A company owned by Joseph Mercola, a controversial holistic health activist from Illinois with more than 100,000 Twitter followers, has kicked in $800,000.

Opponents have raised more than nine times as much. Almost all of the nearly $25 million has come from a variety of chemical, seed and processed-food companies, including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestle, PepsiCo and DuPont Pioneer. St. Louis-based Monsanto, a leading producer of genetically engineered seeds, donated $4.2 million, the largest donation.


"This one snuck up on everyone," said Bob Stern, a California campaign finance expert. "No one was paying attention, and all of a sudden proponents turned in their signatures. It takes a lot of money to get something on the ballot, but once it's on the ballot it takes a lot of money to defeat it."


Stern noted that in 2008, California passed Proposition 2 -- which prohibits the close confinement of farm animals like chickens in crates -- with 63.5 percent of the vote. He sees similarities with Proposition 37, saying both are "feel-good" initiatives.

Spending on Proposition 2 was roughly equal. Supporters spent $10.6 million, opponents $8.9 million.
"Usually on controversial measures, if the no side outspends the yes side, the no side wins," Stern said. "But this one will be hard to defeat because there is so much support for the idea. People say: 'What's wrong with having more information about my food?' The opposition has to show why it's not necessary, and they will have to spend $20, $30, maybe $40 million."

Genetic engineering is the process of changing the DNA of living organisms; it is often used to improve a plant's resistance to pests. According to some estimates, 40 to 70 percent of food products sold in grocery stores in California contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The labeling initiative largely covers processed foods that contain such ingredients, but there are exemptions for alcohol and restaurant meals. Milk, cheese and other dairy products made from cows that are injected with the bovine growth hormone or eat genetically engineered feed like alfalfa would be exempt, but meat or dairy products from animals that are genetically engineered would be labeled.

Many other nations, including Japan, China and a host of European countries, already label genetically engineered food. In the United States, however, products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are generally not labeled. But many organic growers and food companies voluntarily label their products with a seal verifying that their foods do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

The federal Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for protecting public health by assuring the safety of the nation's food supply, takes the position that genetically engineered food doesn't present greater safety concerns than food that isn't. Still, some consumers remain unconvinced.

"I have a right to know what's in my food, and this is a good start," said Chico resident Pamm Larry, 56, a former organic farmer who led the effort to get Proposition 37 on the ballot. "We have more than 2,000 volunteers statewide, and 80 percent are women. This issue really resonates with people."

In 2000, 25 percent of the corn planted in the United States was genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By 2012, that figure had soared to 88 percent.

Most corn is grown for feeding animals; the sweet corn eaten by consumers is less likely to be genetically engineered. Still, Monsanto's genetically modified sweet corn will soon be available at Walmart.

"Genetic engineering is not new," said Henry Miller, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. "It is wildly popular with farmers."

Opponents say the labeling requirement implies that there is something inherently inferior or harmful about genetically engineered ingredients and will just confuse consumers. They also argue that it will raise food prices and harm the state's $38 billion agriculture industry.

"It will have a very wide impact on the economy, families, the agricultural community, grocery stores and food distributors," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 37 coalition.

The group California Right to Know, which is leading the pro-labeling campaign, is counting on a vast social media network and volunteers to get its message out.

Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the yes campaign, said the campaign hopes to raise more money, but is prepared to be outspent. But she hopes that will work to the proponents' advantage.
"This," Malkan said, "is a people's movement against out-of-state corporations."


Via Mercury News

One Year In, Is California's Plan to Fix Its Prisons Working?

By californiareport.org

Governor Jerry Brown's plan to overhaul the state's criminal justice system, known as realignment, is redirecting thousands of low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails. Can this prison reform effort succeed where others have failed?

Governor Jerry Brown's plan to overhaul the state's criminal justice system, known as realignment, is redirecting thousands of low-level offenders from state prisons to county jails. This has partially eased prison overcrowding, but realignment has another goal: improving rehabilitation programs for the hardcore inmates who remain in state prisons. Currently 7 out of 10 ex-prisoners reoffend. Can this prison reform effort succeed where others have failed?

Images of California's prison overcrowding were iconic -- thousands of inmates living in bunk beds packed into gymnasiums and other improvised dorms. So its no surprise the mood was celebratory earlier this year when prisons chief Matthew Cate announced the removal of the last of these emergency beds at a prison near Tracy, calling it a great day for the California Department of Corrections.

Cate then showed off an empty gym. He declared California's embattled prison system was charting a new course. "I think it feels like the end of this era," Cates said, "where we felt comfortable just shoving inmates into the prison system and we didn't seem to care what happened after that. So I think it's the beginning of an era where we say we need to provide a program for those inmates who are going to join society one day."

That new era is detailed in a bold strategic plan that seeks to end federal court oversight and expand treatment programs. The problem is that previous efforts by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitaion, or CDDR, to reform the prison system have met obstacles or failed completely.

"CDCR has not had a history of being able to really marshal the kind of effort that this is going to take," said Joan Petersilia, a Stanford law professor and prominent criminologist.

During the Schwarzenegger administration, Petersilia helped design a model rehabilitation system to reverse decades of neglect in state prisons. The initiative was adopted by lawmakers and promoted by the corrections department in a 2008 video, highlighting expanded rehabilitation programs to improve public safety. But the plan never fully got off the ground amid the recession and budget cuts. Petersilia said the state's latest effort will have to overcome "monumental" challenges to be successful. "I'm not confident, but I'd like to be pleasantly surprised," said Petersilia.

Today, at Solano prison, 50 miles northeast of San Francisco, there are no signs of overcrowding on the main yards. But like 22 other state prisons, Solano is still operating above population limits set by federal courts. And the prison's education staff still hasn't recovered from state budget cuts. "We used to be a staff of 135, and now we're a staff of 32," said teacher Jenny Casner, "That was huge, big cuts."

Still, hundreds of inmates are busy in programs and prison jobs. There's a small facility where prisoners produce lenses for eyeglasses. And down the hill from the prison, dozens of inmates attend Solano's extensive substance abuse programs.

The men who lead the group are prisoners -- lifers. And that's not unusual. Since staff cutbacks, many programs are being run by inmates, like 47-year-old Cotton Jones. He said realignment has emboldened reformers inside the prison system to create more opportunities.

"Realignment is giving them not power but there's a mandate," said Jones, "and because there's a mandate now they get to say okay, because we know we have to let some people go, we have to do something to make them better. I've been in for two decades but at some point I'll be someone's neighbor."

Some inmates are pessimistic. 

Breaking the Addiction to Incarceration: Weekly Highlights

By Alex Stamm, ACLU Center for Justice at 1:39pm

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.

California High Court Rules that 110-year Sentence for Teenager is Unconstitutional
Rodrigo Caballero was 16 when he shot and wounded three rival gang members. He was convicted of three counts of attempted murder and sentenced to 110 years in prison. Caballero would not be eligible for parole for 100 years. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for nonhomicide offenses violates the Eighth Amendment; concluding that Caballero’s long sentence was effectively equivalent to life without parole, the California Supreme Court found Caballero’s sentence unconstitutional.
Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole Could Get Second Chance Under California Bill
The California Assembly passed a bill that would allow prisoners serving life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed as a juvenile to ask a court to reduce their sentences to 25 years to life, but only if they have already spent 15 years behind bars, have worked toward rehabilitation and can prove they are remorseful. If the court agrees, the prisoner could appeal to the state's parole board for release after serving 25 years. Supporters estimate that a minority of the 300 prisoners sentenced to life without parole as juveniles would be eligible for a new sentence under the bill.
California Unlikely to Sufficiently Reduce Overcrowding by Deadline
The Supreme Court gave California until June 2013 to reduce overcrowding in its prisons to no more than 137.5 percent of capacity. State officials now believe that they will not be unable to comply by the deadline, and indicated that they intend to ask for a new cap of 145 percent. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times issued a notable reply to the state’s announcement, calling on the state to employ smart strategies to reduce prison populations, including revising certain mandatory minimums and implementing earned-credit programs that would allow prisoners to reduce their sentences by participating in programs proven to reduce recidivism.
Texas' Prison Population Down 2,500 in Past Year
Despite a growing overall population, Texas’ prison population continues its trend downward, recently posting its lowest total since 2008. Credit for the trend is likely due to a combination of factors, including falling crime rates, an aging population, and a series of smart, bipartisan reforms. Texas still has a lot of work ahead: the state still holds the nation’s largest prison population and faces a lingering staffing shortage
Texas Parole Reforms are a Success Story, So Far
Parole releases are up and parole revocations are down in Texas, thanks to the use of revamped guidelines that allow the Parole Board to better assess the likelihood of a successful parole outcome.
Learn more about overincarceration: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

via ACLU

AB 2204 - Healthy Communities Act of 2012

Prop. 31 could be Californians' most important ballot decision

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger discusses the defeat
of his special election ballot measures.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / November 10, 2005)

By Robert Greene

 

August 21, 2012, 8:00 a.m.

So what's on the Nov. 6 ballot? California's marquee measures are two competing tax increases, three crime-and-punishment reforms (including eliminating the death penalty) and a controversial initiative to require labeling of genetically modified foods. In comparison, the already arid topic of state budget reform comes off as even drier and dustier. But Proposition 31 could, in the end, be Californians' most important ballot decision in years.

It's a head-scratcher, though. Should California have a two-year budget cycle instead of the current yearlong setup? Should we care? This is not one of those questions that gets the blood pumping or the fist shaking. Should conservatives like this? Should liberals? The only honest answer is a shrug of the shoulders, followed by a commitment to drive deep into the details and ferret out the policy implications. And let's be honest -- that sounds an awful lot like homework. Arguing for or against a tax increase is more fun. Or at least more interesting.

Proposition 31 would also allow cities, counties, school districts and other local governments to coordinate their services, and that could be good. And locals would be able to thumb their noses at state regulations if they could come up with their own regs that get the same job done. Intriguing. It would allow them to snub the state’s decisions on property tax allocation and let local governments to reallocate taxes among themselves. Very interesting. It would shift some state sales tax revenues from the state to local governments.

So, in essence, it would transfer a great deal of decision-making power from Sacramento back to the locals, ending a 35-year era of political centralization. That loss of power in city halls and school board auditoriums began after Proposition 13, when state lawmakers began inventing convoluted schemes to keep local governments and schools funded. When state government began doling out the dollars, it also took over much of the discretion on how those dollars are spent.

But Proposition 31 would also make the governor much more powerful by letting him or her unilaterally slash the state budget in case of a fiscal emergency. And it would force the Legislature to spend more time reviewing programs and less time passing bills.

If much of this sounds familiar, that's because many of the bits and pieces of Proposition 31 were batted about by Arnold Schwarzenegger (remember him?) and the good-government moderate reforming types at California Forward, the Think Long Committee for California and the Nicholas Berggruen Institute. Schwarzenegger floated the strong-governor portion in a 2005 ballot measure. It lost. The Times editorial page was not a fan.

So is this finally the levelheaded cavalry riding to the relief of self-immolating California? The wise centrists parting the spend-crazy Democrats and the tax-obsessed Republicans? Or perhaps just the wealthy and intellectual elite trying to tell us what’s best for us (read: what’s best for them)?

Geeky, wonky types like editorial writers live for this stuff. While we love homework, though, we're not above receiving some wise tutoring, so we invite insiders and outsiders, Californians and out-of-staters, voters, never-voters and everyone else to help us frame our questions for the proponents and opponents of Proposition 31, in advance of making our endorsement recommendation in the weeks before Nov. 6. Voters, especially, need to know what they're being asked to approve. We're looking for guidance -- on providing guidance.

Subject: Prosecutors’ Overreaching Goes Unchecked

Prosecutors’ Overreaching Goes Unchecked

Angela J. Davis is a professor of law at American University. She is a former director of the D.C. Public Defender Service and the author of "Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor."

AUGUST 19, 2012

Prosecutors are the most powerful officials in the criminal justice system. They decide whether criminal charges should be brought and what those charges should be, and they exercise almost boundless discretion in making those crucial decisions. Prosecutors alone decide whether to offer the defendant the option of pleading guilty to reduced charges. When one considers the fact that more than 95 percent of all criminal cases are resolved with guilty pleas, it is very clear that prosecutors control the criminal justice system through their charging and plea bargaining powers.

Unchecked power in the hands of prosecutors is as much a threat to our democracy as it is with any other government official, if not more.

Equally problematic is the fact that the charging and plea bargaining decisions are made behind closed doors, and prosecutors are not required to justify or explain these decisions to anyone. If a prosecutor treats two similarly situated defendants differently -- charging one but not the other or offering a better plea offer to one -- it is almost impossible to challenge such differential treatment. The lack of transparency in the prosecution function also leads to misconduct, like the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence -- a common occurrence made famous by the prosecutors in the Duke lacrosse and Senator Ted Stevens cases.

We live in a democracy in which we hold accountable those to whom we grant power, but we have fallen short when it comes to prosecutors. State and local prosecutors are presumably held accountable through the electoral process, but few voters know enough about the prosecution function to make a meaningful decision at the ballot box. When prosecutors run for office, they don't talk about their charging and plea bargaining policies (if such policies even exist). With a few notable exceptions, most prosecutors run on a "tough on crime" message, providing little, if any, information about anything else. There is even less accountability on the federal level where U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president.

The Supreme Court has consistently deferred to prosecutors in a series of cases, including claims of race-based selective prosecution and the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. Bar counsel offices rarely bring charges against prosecutors who have violated ethical rules.

Unchecked power in the hands of prosecutors is as much a threat to our democracy as it is with any other government official, if not more. Prosecutorial decisions often result in a loss of liberty and even life. We must do a better job of holding prosecutors accountable -- at the ballot box and through bar counsel prosecutions, when appropriate.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/19/do-prosecutors-have-too-much-power/federal-proscutors-have-way-too-much-power

--
Lois Ahrens * The Real Cost of Prisons Project * www.realcostofprisons.org *