Assistant Sheriff Linday Suvoy stated  that inmates have benefited from the new law which has given them time credits for their good behavior. These inmates can now each earn a days credit for every day served. In recent times, they only received two days for every six days served. This new law only applies to non-violent offenders and not those serving time for more serious crimes like assault, attempted murder, etc.

County officials determined that 222 inmates who benefited from the good behavior credits and released were named as having committed crimes such as driving on a suspended license, DUI, disorderly conduct or  committing check fraud.

Sheriff Mims, who has been the focus of controversy, claims the lay-offs, releasing inmates early and the closure of jail floors was a necessary move on her part. All of these things were done in order to close the nearly $4 million dollar budget deficit.

So what’s happening here?  LA County Sheriff Lee Baca stated that these early release sentences for inmates may be the future of what’s “inevitable” as the county’s budget crisis continues. The Department currently faces a $128 million budget gap.

Department spokesman Steve Whitmore stated, “The discussion has moved to the forefront… It has become another tool that we are looking at.”

Baca stated the department was looking at several measures to help reduce the budget by about nine percent, including cutting overtime pay and moving hundreds of deputies from their adminstrative duties to patrolling the streets. He added that early releases are yet another measure to help cut costs.

For a time in 2004, Baca moved for the early release of petty criminals to help save budget money. Some law enforcement officials criticized this decision.

Further, Ex LAPD Chief, William J. Bratton stated the early releases actually undercut the LAPD’s so-called ”broken-windows strategy.” The strategy based on the idea that punishing lesser offenses would lead to reductions in more serious crimes.

Just this week, at least 200 county inmates were released in the Castaic detention facility due to downsizing. Steve Whitmore stated that inmates were released beginning on Tuesday.

I don’t know if this is better or worse than Baca’s budget tactics last year of calling for the closing of Pitchess Jail (which didn’t happen).

During those times, states tried to fight rising crime rates by meting out stiffer sentences. This tactic did reduce criminal activity, but it also sent jail populations skyrocketing . Recent early release programs that were intended to combat the financially devastating inmate-influx have been sharply criticized by police and the public.

In California, where the state’s 33 prisons are designed to hold 85,000 inmates, these detention centers are packed to the gills with 160,000 men and women — almost double the amount! But at last, there may be a solution to this situation, born from what some might see as an unlikely source: bail bondsmen.

The relatively new idea is to use financial collateral as an incentive for convicted criminals to behave. To do this, the bondmen would post something called Conditional Post-Conviction Release Bonds. Here’s how they work:

Dennis Bartlett, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition and a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council has created the Conditional Post-Conviction Release (CPCR) Bond Act along with ALEC and other groups. Courts choose nonviolent offenders who meet strict criteria and then allow private bail companies to post this type of bond on their behalf. Taxpayers benefit because there is no cost to them and the criminals now have a financial incentive to appear in court. Violent offenders who are not eligible for this type of bond can then be incarcerated in the freed up prison spaces to serve their sentences in full.

As a condition of signing on for these CPCR Bonds, defendants must agree to let bail companies monitor them for drugs, check to see if they are employed, if they are in a recovery program and/or whatever other conditions apply.

Bartlett says that post-conviction bonds could even be used to keep people from entering the prison system at all. They would give judges a choice between issuing a sentence and offering an eligible defendant be bonded, instead. This is a win-win for the state, Bartlett believes, because the prisons get one less inmate, and the state can collect money from the bail bondsman if the person skips his court hearing or disappears.

Mississippi probation workers embraced Post-Conviction bonds after realizing they made their jobs easier by decreasing workloads. Mississippi became the first state to adopt the Conditional Post-Conviction Release Bond Act, three years ago. Michigan passed another version of it in 2009. According to Gene Newman, Secretary of the Professional Bail Agents of the United States, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, California and other states will soon be jumping on the bandwagon.

There isn’t much data on how well these bonds have worked out so far, but according to Bartlett, results look promising. About 1,000 inmates were released in Mississippi and over 97 percent of them kept their court dates. Mississippi jails are now saving around $35,000 per inmate for every year they aren’t incarcerated (minus medical costs and other expenses).

Some bail bondsmen are opposed to performance bonds such as Post-Conviction Bonds because they do not have the time, financial means or manpower to monitor defendants 24/7. And, while I doubt this bail bond company would undertake these bonds, it does sound like the benefits to California could be significant.

Bartlett is hopeful that with more publicity and positive data, Post-Conviction Bonds could be the miracle cure for prison overcrowding. Let us hope so, because if this situation goes unchanged, like the flood from our metaphorical burst dam, it will overwhelm us all.

Source: Post-Conviction Bonds a Promising Solution to Prison Overcrowding
Photocredit: © Liv Friis-larsen – Fotolia.com

When you think of Santa Barbara you probably think of life enchanted by the Pacific Ocean… a lovely walk down State Street, a visit to the zoo, great food, college students at Isla Vista… As bondsmen, when we think of Santa Barbara along with all of the beauty the County has to offer, we think of the Santa Barbara jail system.

Greg Rynerson Bail Bonds continues with the second in our series on California jails: Inside the Santa Barbara County Jails. Here we will let you in on

• Inmate Processing
• Santa Barbara Jail Operations
• Rehabilitation
• Overcrowding and Recidivism

Is there a jail you’d like to know more about? Let us know. We’ll get you “Inside” (or, if you need we’ll get you out!).

Reportedly, Judge Steven Perk wants the final decision left in the hands of Sheriff Sandra Hutchens stating, “How do I issue an order to the board of supervisors telling the sheriff how to run the jail… if I don’t have jurisdiction over that person, then I don’t have the authority.”

The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs wanted to put a stop to a new law that was put in effect last month.  The new law allows a reduction in inmate sentences by up to half through ‘good behaviour credits.’

Initially, the law was put forth to ease the overcrowding in prisons and save millions of state budget dollars.  But the sheriff’s union argument spoke to how this move could endanger the public. The Crime Victims United of California group filed a lawsuit claiming the new early release law jeopardizes the public and is unconstitutional.

The decision has also created confusion with local law enforcement officials.  The quandry is to whether the law applies to both county jails as well as state prisons. Over 1,500 have been released from California County jails since the new law came to effect on Jan. 25th of last year. The legislation was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Next month, Judge Perk will have another hearing on whether or not to block any further early releases. 

We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully, our decision makers won’t make the move that sends the crime makers back on to the streets.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill for this law last fall in an effort to ease the state’s crushing budget deficit.  As a result, around 6,500 state inmates are due to be freed this year, to save California $500 million.

At least 18 of California’s 58 counties have applied the law retroactively by giving their county jail inmates additional credits for time already served before it took effect.  This has lead to a huge increase of releases to the tune of some 150 prisoners, over the last two weeks.

Thankfully, no state prisoners have been released so far because the bill’s language regarding this category of inmate is more specific: State prisoners would receive credit only for completing rehabilitation programs they started after the law took effect.

Both Democrat and Republican lawmakers are demanding that many parts of this law should be clarified, modified and even repealed.  The Sacramento County Deputies’ Union has supported them by filing a lawsuit to block the law entirely.

Two Democratic Assembly members, Ted Lieu of Torrance and Alyson Huber of Lodi, have introduced a bill requiring local law enforcement agencies to be notified before any state inmates are freed without parole supervision. We’re not sure of the value of the bill.

Some state corrections and law enforcement officials maintain that this law could improve public safety by easing overcrowding in state prisons.  It encourages prisoners to finish rehabilitation programs and reduces caseloads for parole officers so they can concentrate on violent offenders. But the majority of California lawmakers and citizens vigorously disagree.

The law is also not very clear on when the early release credits should be applied. The state attorney general, state corrections officials and associations representing sheriffs and prosecutors cannot provide an answer, leaving each sheriff to make that decision on his own after some consultation with local prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and lawyers. As with many budget cuts, it’s a great idea, but the implementation is not well throughout.