The state of California is at a very critical crossroads in its one
hundred forty-seven year history as part of the union. In additions to
having one of this Nations highest unemployment rates, and the Nations highest gasoline
prices, California also has several controversial legal arguments pending. Same
sex marriage is a huge dilemma, and the constitutional relevance of immigration
reform also has both moral and legal ramifications. However, when making a
decision concerning the safety of the public, none of the adversities that
California confronts, has more ability to disrupt the stability of the residence
of this state then realignment.
After the Supreme Court ruled that California must reduce its prison
population, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 109, also known as “Realignment”
into the states legislation. AB109 permits the state to shift the
responsibility of felons who are eligible for parole, and who qualifies under what
is referred to as the “Non Non Non,” non serious, non sexual and non violent
crimes, to the jurisdiction of the county. Felons who also commit new crimes
under the same criteria’s will no longer serve their sentence at a state
correctional facility, but instead remain incarcerated in a county facility for
the duration of their sentence.
The
counties which the state are releasing these individuals are not equipped, or
trained, nor have the financial capability to adequately provide the services
necessary to substantially assist these individuals in transitioning back into
society. The governors endorsement of this bill renders felons released under AB109
vulnerable, and it makes our communities volatile.
Realignment and catastrophe are synonymous, and to say that the return to
custody rate will double, and the crime rate will triple in our communities is redundant. AB109 is
nothing more than another ploy to dump the burden of the States financial
troubles on the backs of its minorities, and let us not be deceived by bureaucracy. Any measure that
claims to allocate monies to finance AB109 that may appear on future
ballots may not be forthright. In my opinion, until we can be certain that any
of our future tax dollars deducted for this purpose is going to go to the benefit of individuals
being released from custody entirely, we should simply vote no.
