In a letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the ACLU of Southern California and Public Counsel strongly urge the board to vote in favor of the Los Angeles County Probation Department’s Strategic Plan for the implementation of AB 109, also known as the Public Safety Realignment bill.  Under this bill Los Angeles County is slated to receive a higher percentage of parolees than any other county in California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has mandated that the state prison population be reduced, sending thousands of prisoners to local jurisdictions.  The Supervisors must decide if these released prisoners will fall under the purview of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, already saddled with overcrowding and poor conditions or the Los Angeles County Probation Department.

The choice is clear cut. The Probation Department follows a community supervision model and will result in lower caseloads than the Sheriff’s Department Proposal.  Sheriff’s deputies’ primary duties include patrol and custody, but not parole supervision.  Their plan comprised calls for law enforcement agents to assume the task of coordinating services and supervision for parolees.

“As research demonstrates, it would be entirely inappropriate for the law enforcement agents to assume the role that the Sheriff’s Plan proposes,” the letter states.  “Potential harms to supervised individuals under this plan could include increased recidivism, relapse and mental deterioration.  The harm would be felt not only by the probationers, but also the taxpayer in the form of enormous costs of incarcerating violated probationers in County jails.” 

 “The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department has no experience in monitoring parolees,” said Clarissa Woo, director of policy advocacy for the ACLU/SC.  “Sheriff’s deputies are trained to run jails and to provide law enforcement.  They’ve had no training in the issues faced by returning parolees.  If the Sheriff’s Department is handed that responsibility, Los Angeles County would be the first in the United States to assign the job of supervising probationers or parolees to a sheriff or police department.”  

The Board of Supervisors must decide and submit the County’s plan by August 1. 

I have this thing about myths. I like to know the difference between Reality and, well, Not-Reality. I spend a lot of time on Snopes.com, I avoid Fox News, my grandfather was even one of those guys who went on an expedition looking for Noah’s Ark (seriously). So I’m pleased to say that the myth of California’s death penalty is widely being exposed, as more and more people realize that a functional and efficient death penalty system belongs firmly in the Not-Reality Column. Death sentences in California are at an all-time low. The Assembly is now considering a bill that would allow voters to replace the death penalty – meaning that the myth is being exposed from prosecutors’ offices to jury deliberation rooms and all the way to the statehouse.
According to a new report by the ACLU of Northern California, aptly titled “California’s Death Penalty is Dead,” the first six months of 2011 saw only three new death sentences in the entire state, the lowest since the death penalty was reinstated 1978. By comparison, this time last year California had thirteen new death sentences, and that wasn’t out of the ordinary. If the trend continues, by year’s end California may even lose its grim distinction as the nation’s death sentencing leader.
Meanwhile, State Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) has authored SB 490, a bill that would give voters a chance to end the myth once and for all by replacing the death penalty with a maximum punishment of life without the possibility of parole plus work and restitution, saving $1 billion over five years. The bill was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee last week and is making its way to the floor. If passed, voters will be given the choice in the November 2012 election. If you live in California, you can urge your legislators to support SB 490 here.
This sudden drop in death sentences and the momentum to replace the death penalty with a real public safety solution didn’t just crop up out of nowhere. They're the result of the death penalty’s myths being exposed.
Like the myth that executions are cheaper than life sentences; reality: a new study by a federal judge and law school professor showed that the death penalty costs California taxpayers $184 million per year more than life without parole, and each execution costs $308 million. Prosecutors and juries who can recognize reality are winning out.
Then there’s the claim that the death penalty gives “closure” to victims’ families. File that under "Not-Reality".
Reality: the death penalty is the opposite of swift and certain justice. Out of more than 900 men and women sentenced to die in California only 13 have ever been executed. Victims’ family members are dragged through decades of appeals and hearings while they wait for an execution that rarely comes.  
The myth that Californians want to keep our dysfunctional death penalty is also wrong.  One oft-repeated poll shows 70 percent support for the death penalty in the abstract. The same poll also shows that when given a choice, voters actually prefer life without the possibility of parole over the death penalty – a finding echoed in other polls.
Reality: a fair, functional, efficient death penalty is attractive to many voters, but is now recognized as unattainable; in other words, a myth. When people learn how much the death penalty costs, how long it takes, how bad it is for victims’ families and law enforcement and the budget, they opt for real-world alternatives. An April 2011 poll showed that 63 percent of likely voters want the governor to convert death sentences to life without parole as a budget solution.
Public support for California’s sham of a death penalty belongs firmly in the Not-Reality Column. It’s time the law caught up with reality and California cut through the myth of the death penalty once and for all. California should pass SB 490 and let the voters decide whether they can think of a better way to spend a billion dollars.