The measure, approved statewide in 2024 and closely watched here in the Inland Empire and across Southern California, created a new “treatment-mandated felony” for repeat drug offenses. Defendants can avoid up to three years behind bars by pleading guilty and completing court-ordered treatment. Complete the program, and the felony disappears from the record.

But an analysis of data from 15 California counties with the heaviest caseloads under the new law found that only a small share of people arrested on these charges ever make it into treatment — and fewer still finish it. Statewide, of nearly 18,700 felony drug cases filed under Prop. 36 last year, only 17% of defendants opted into treatment, and just 57 cases statewide ended in dismissal after someone graduated a program.

In Orange County, which logged more Prop. 36 referrals than any other county examined, 1,311 people were referred for drug treatment as of February. Only 314 agreed to enter a program. Fewer than half of those were actively receiving care, and just 15 had graduated.

The findings raise questions for Inland Empire residents and officials alike, since Riverside and San Bernardino counties — like their counterparts statewide — are grappling with the same fundamental problem: Prop. 36 arrived with big promises but little money to back them up.

**A law without a budget**

Proposition 36, championed by district attorneys and sheriffs including several from Southern California, was sold to voters as a way to combat homelessness, addiction and retail theft simultaneously. It rolled back parts of a 2014 measure that had reduced many drug and theft crimes to misdemeanors in an effort to ease prison overcrowding.

Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the initiative, warning it amounted to an “unfunded mandate” that risked reviving the excesses of the War on Drugs. That prediction has, at least partially, borne out. Voters approved the policy with no dedicated funding stream, and while the Legislature has since allocated money, advocates say it falls far short of what’s needed.

This year’s state budget included just $50 million for pretrial services, behavioral health programs and court workloads tied to Prop. 36 — a fraction of the $650 million that lawmakers pushing for full implementation had sought.

“The statute basically said, ‘We will fix everything for you’ — we’ll come up with a mental health plan, a drug addiction plan, a job plan, a housing plan,” said Tracie Olson, chief public defender in Yolo County. “And none of that happened.”

**Inconsistent rules, inconsistent outcomes**

Perhaps most striking is how differently counties have chosen to apply the law. The length of time someone must remain in treatment before charges are dropped ranges from as little as three months in Ventura County to as long as two years in San Luis Obispo County. Some counties, such as San Francisco, have made almost no arrests under the new provisions at all.

Because Prop. 36 does not include a “washout period” for old convictions, some public defenders report seeing felony charges built on drug convictions dating back decades — sometimes to the 1980s — even when a defendant has been sober and out of the system for years.

That’s what happened to Nicco Pierstorff, a 40-year-old Orange County resident who had already beaten a methamphetamine addiction and rebuilt his life, landing steady work and an apartment in Buena Park. After police found drugs in a backpack in his car last year — one he says belonged to someone else — his history of arrests from nearly a decade earlier qualified him for a new felony charge under Prop. 36.

Pierstorff completed six months of treatment, including twice-weekly drug testing, group counseling and regular court appearances, and had his charge dismissed this past spring. Despite his initial anger at being swept up in the system, he now credits the program with helping him understand the trauma behind his past addiction.

“At first I thought it would be a waste of time because I was already sober,” he said. “But being in Prop. 36 really did help me a lot.”

**Treatment beds in short supply**

Even defendants eager to get help often find the system unable to accommodate them. In Orange County, which has fewer than 300 residential treatment beds, wait times have stretched from about a week before Prop. 36 to as long as six weeks now, according to Ian Kemmer, the county’s director of behavioral health services. In the meantime, people are placed in sober living homes that don’t offer the clinical treatment they need — a dangerous gap, since addiction specialists say swift intervention is critical to keeping people from relapsing.

In Santa Clara County, Judge Stephen Manley, who oversees drug and mental health cases, said the shortage extends across every diversion pathway the county offers.

“We are simply out of treatment in my county,” Manley said. “Whether you’re Prop. 36 or probation or mental health diversion, you have to wait a long time to get into treatment.”

Housing remains another unmet piece of the puzzle. In several counties studied, more than half the people referred for evaluation were homeless — 61% in Santa Clara County and 62% in Orange County. Most counties don’t even track how many participants ultimately find stable housing while in treatment.

**Mixed results, mixed opinions**

Not everyone views the rollout as a failure. San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan points to her county as a bright spot, noting that 71% of defendants who pleaded guilty to a Prop. 36 drug felony began the path toward mandated treatment, with fewer than 5% receiving jail or prison sentences. Still, county data show that only a third of people referred for evaluation ultimately accepted treatment, and just two had graduated as of December.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, one of the measure’s most prominent Democratic backers, argues the core policy isn’t at fault — the state’s failure to invest in treatment infrastructure is.

“People are waiting and dying on the streets for lack of a proper treatment system,” Mahan said. “The state has refused to take ownership of building a robust treatment system.”

Others, including Greg Totten of the California District Attorneys Association, maintain the law is functioning largely as designed, with the biggest obstacle being a shortage of treatment capacity at the local level rather than any flaw in the statute itself.

**Success stories amid the gaps**

For some participants, the program has proven life-changing despite its shortcomings. Gustavo Meza, arrested last year in San Mateo County on a Prop. 36 drug charge, says he likely would have died from his addiction had he not been swept into the justice system. He had overdosed multiple times, including days before his arrest, and was homeless at the time.

It took nearly 10 months for the courts to formally enroll him in the program — during which time Meza had already sought out treatment on his own and gotten sober. Today he works two jobs, attends group counseling and hopes to eventually become a substance abuse counselor and reconnect with his young daughter.

“I’m sober, clear-minded, not doing the stuff I used to be doing,” Meza said. “I just want to start nice and slow.”

As lawmakers weigh whether to direct more funding toward Prop. 36 implementation, local officials across the region say the law’s underlying goals remain sound — but without a substantial investment in treatment beds, housing and mental health services, they warn that many defendants who want help will continue to find the system unable to provide it.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Prop. 47 Pledged Treatment Over Jail — Many Californians Are Still Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 71-year-old, once incarcerated for decades, has repeatedly made the long drive from Orange County to Sacramento to press state lawmakers to pass a bill she believes would give other survivors of domestic violence a fairer chance when they face criminal charges.

Each time, legislators appeared receptive — only to quietly shelve the measure before it reached the finish line.

Bustamante is hoping this fourth attempt turns out differently.

She is once again backing legislation, opposed by law enforcement and prosecutors, that would allow survivors of human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual abuse to raise their history of victimization as a legal defense when charged with violent crimes — with an exception for most murder cases.

People already convicted would also be allowed to ask a judge to vacate their convictions. If approved, their arrests and convictions would be treated as though they never happened. Records would be sealed and destroyed, and any outstanding fines or victim restitution tied to the case would be forgiven.

“I’m willing to fight for the people who aren’t in the position I’m in right now, so I can use my voice… and fight for this,” Bustamante told CalMatters in an interview Friday.

Bustamante was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 1987. Prosecutors argued she had hired her brother to kill her husband, Steven Bustamante, and helped dispose of his body in exchange for a $100,000 life insurance payout she split with her sibling.

Bustamante says that during her two-day trial, she was never allowed to tell jurors about the repeated beatings and death threats she says she endured from her husband. She maintains she only asked her brother for help.

“It never crossed my mind that he could kill Steven,” she told lawmakers last month. “Afterward, he called to tell me Steven was dead. He threatened to call the police and say I had planned it. He blackmailed me into giving him Steven’s insurance money. I was afraid I’d lose my daughters, so I gave in.”

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown commuted Bustamante’s sentence in 2017 after learning her story and reviewing her clean record behind bars. She was released the following year, after three decades in prison.

Bustamante said she would not qualify to have her own case overturned under the bill she is now championing.

California law already allows defendants to testify about abuse they suffered and to bring in expert witnesses who can explain how that trauma shaped their actions. Judges may also weigh a defendant’s history of trafficking or domestic abuse during sentencing. This bill would go further, allowing survivors to use that history as an actual legal defense against violent crime charges.

State law already lets people convicted of nonviolent offenses seek similar relief through the courts.

Budget committees have quietly killed the bill before

Since her release, Bustamante has worked with nonprofit organizations that help survivors of abuse and incarceration rebuild their lives after leaving prison.

She first testified before the Legislature about the need for this bill back in 2023.

In each year since, at least one of the Legislature’s two public safety committees has advanced similar legislation, only for one of the two budget-focused appropriations committees to quietly kill it.

Twice a year, those appropriations committees convene to swiftly reject hundreds of bills, often without debate or explanation.

As CalMatters has previously reported, powerful interest groups, the governor’s office and state agencies frequently lobby behind closed doors to get committees to shelve certain bills. Legislative leaders also use the committees to block politically sensitive measures they’d rather not have members vote on publicly.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the latest version of the bill, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, an Oakland Democrat, next month.

State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat who now chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Why prosecutors and police are pushing back

Law enforcement groups worry that Assembly Bill 910 could open the door for violent offenders — including rapists, kidnappers and child abusers — to flood California’s already overburdened court system with petitions seeking to overturn their convictions.

Opponents describe it as a troubling example of progressive Democrats continuing to soften consequences for dangerous offenders while giving too little consideration to victims.

“Allowing them to essentially walk away from a violent crime is bad policy,” said Greg Totten, a former Ventura County district attorney who now leads the state’s district attorneys association.

Totten noted that defendants already have the right to raise abuse or trafficking history during sentencing hearings.

Bonta did not respond to a request for comment, but told the Senate Public Safety Committee last month that “AB 910 is a second-chance bill — a dignity bill.”

“Survivors shouldn’t spend their whole lives paying for the abuse they suffered,” she said.

According to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database, at least 17 organizations — including ACLU California Action and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office — support the bill.

Supporters argue that virtually no one convicted of a violent crime would actually qualify for relief under the proposal.

For the small number who might, backers say it would be far less costly to let survivors reintegrate into society without a criminal record working against them as they search for jobs, housing and other support.

“If even one person gets help because of this bill, it will have paid for itself,” said Leigh LaChapelle, director of policy and advocacy for the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Bill Would Let Abuse Survivors Cite Trauma as Legal Defense in Violent Crime Cases appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 71-year-old Orange County woman, once sentenced to life in prison, has traveled repeatedly to the state Capitol to press lawmakers to pass legislation she believes could offer relief to other domestic violence survivors ensnared in the criminal justice system. Each of the past three years, the bill has cleared initial committee hurdles before quietly dying behind closed doors.

This year, Bustamante is hoping for a different outcome.

The proposal, opposed by police and prosecutor groups statewide, would let survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner abuse or sexual violence introduce their history of victimization as a legal defense when charged with violent crimes — with an exception for most homicide cases. People already convicted of qualifying offenses could also ask a judge to throw out their convictions entirely. If granted, the arrest and conviction would be wiped from the record, court files sealed and destroyed, and any outstanding fines or restitution forgiven.

“I’m willing to fight for those who are not in the position that I am right now to be able to open my mouth and … fight for this,” Bustamante said in an interview last week.

Her own case illustrates why she’s become such a persistent advocate. In 1987, Bustamante was sentenced to life without parole after prosecutors accused her of hiring her brother to kill her husband, Steven Bustamante, and helping conceal his death in exchange for a $100,000 life insurance payout split between the siblings. She said she was never permitted to tell the jury, during a trial that lasted only two days, that her husband had repeatedly beaten her and threatened her life.

“The idea that he would kill Steven never occurred to me,” Bustamante told state lawmakers last month. “Later, he called me to say that Steven was dead. He threatened to call the police and say I planned it. He blackmailed me for Steven’s insurance. I was afraid of having my daughters taken from me, so I gave in.”

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown commuted her sentence in 2017 after reviewing her case and her clean disciplinary record behind bars. She was released the following year, after three decades in prison. Notably, Bustamante said she would not even qualify for relief under the bill she’s championing — she’s pushing for it purely on behalf of others.

Current California law already permits defendants to present evidence of past abuse and call expert witnesses to explain its psychological effects, and judges may weigh a defendant’s history of trafficking or domestic violence at sentencing. The new measure would go further, allowing that history to serve as an actual defense against violent crime charges. State law already extends similar post-conviction relief to people convicted of nonviolent offenses.

Since Bustamante first testified in Sacramento in 2023, versions of the bill have cleared one of the Legislature’s two public safety committees each year, only to be quietly shelved by one of the chamber’s appropriations committees — panels that meet twice yearly to dispose of hundreds of bills without public debate. As CalMatters has previously reported, these committees are often where powerful interest groups, the governor’s office and state agencies exert influence behind the scenes, and where legislative leaders sometimes bury bills they’d rather not oppose publicly.

This year’s version, Assembly Bill 910, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, an Oakland Democrat, is scheduled to go before the Senate Appropriations Committee next month. The panel’s new chairperson, Sen. Sabrina Cervantes of Riverside, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Law enforcement groups remain firmly opposed. They warn the bill could open the door for violent offenders — including those convicted of rape, kidnapping and child molestation — to flood California’s already strained courts with petitions seeking to erase their convictions. Critics see it as another example of what they describe as a broader push by progressive lawmakers to soften consequences for serious crimes, often, they argue, at victims’ expense.

“To basically allow them to walk away from a violent crime in terms of accountability is just absurd policy,” said Greg Totten, former Ventura County district attorney and current head of the California District Attorneys Association. Totten pointed out that defendants already have avenues to raise abuse claims during sentencing.

Bonta did not respond to a request for comment, but told the Senate Public Safety Committee last month that the bill represents “a second chance… a dignity bill,” adding, “Survivors should not spend their lives paying for abuse they endured.”

At least 17 organizations have backed the measure, including ACLU California Action and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. Supporters contend that very few people convicted of violent offenses would actually meet the bill’s narrow qualifying criteria, and that for the handful who do, helping them shed felony records that hinder employment and housing would ultimately save taxpayer money.

“If even one person is granted relief under this bill, it will pay for itself,” said Leigh LaChapelle, director of policy and advocacy for the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking.

Whether the measure survives this year’s appropriations process — where it has died three times before — remains uncertain. But for Bustamante, the fight isn’t over.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Weigh Bill to Let Abuse Survivors Cite Trauma as Defense in Violent Crime Cases appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

When Proposition 64 was passed by voters in November 2016, it didn’t just legalize cannabis; it set the stage for an extensive overhaul of criminal justice, enforcement, and taxation policies. Governor Gavin Newsom marked the 10th anniversary of this historic shift by highlighting the key developments and ongoing challenges.

One of the most significant achievements has been the reduction and clearing of cannabis-related convictions. More than 215,000 records have been cleared or reduced across the state, with a strong focus on benefiting communities of color that were disproportionately impacted by past cannabis laws.

From an economic standpoint, California’s legal cannabis market has been a financial success, generating over $7 billion in tax revenue since 2018. These funds have been reinvested into various initiatives, including research, enforcement, and community development programs. To ensure the continued growth of the legal market, lawmakers eliminated the cultivation tax in 2022 and deferred an expected increase in the excise tax scheduled for 2025.

The state has also ramped up efforts to tackle the illegal cannabis market. A multiagency task force, established in 2022, has made substantial progress, seizing more than 778,000 pounds of illicit cannabis, dismantling over a million illegal plants, and disrupting $1.2 billion worth of black market activity. Just in the first quarter of 2026, the task force seized illegal cannabis products worth more than $34 million.

Environmental concerns have also played a major role in California’s cannabis policies. Unregulated grows have wreaked havoc on the state’s landscape, but efforts to mitigate the damage are underway. Since the passage of Prop. 64, environmental cleanup teams have removed 350,000 pounds of trash, 566,000 feet of illegal irrigation systems, and decommissioned more than 220 illegal water diversions.

Looking ahead, California’s biggest challenge may be addressing the growing market for hemp-derived intoxicating products that currently operate outside the state’s cannabis regulatory system. Lawmakers are now focused on closing these gaps to ensure that all cannabis products are properly regulated.

As the industry continues to evolve, California’s cannabis program stands as a model of regulation that balances economic growth, criminal justice reform, and environmental responsibility.

The post California Celebrates 10 Years of Legal Cannabis: Achievements and Challenges appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“I went to Thailand, man!” Smith recalled with a grin, describing the first time he strapped on a VR device and was transported to the lush landscapes and bustling markets of Southeast Asia.

A Los Angeles-based nonprofit is bringing the technology to California prisons with the goal of providing inmates a brief escape and, more importantly, exposure to real-world scenarios that will prepare them to reenter society.

During a weeklong program last month, incarcerated men at Valley State Prison near Fresno sat on metal folding chairs in a common area. They shuffled in their seats as they were outfitted with the headsets that resemble opaque goggles. Their necks contorted slightly and smiles spread across their faces as the high-definition videos started and their journeys commenced.

Some saw the sights on the other side of the globe, including Bangkok, while others experienced more practical scenes, such as job interviews. The men sit across virtual desks from virtual interviewers who are both easygoing and hard-nosed to give them the tools for finding employment once they are released.

“For a lot of us, the workforce has changed and things are different with the application process,” said Smith, who is eligible for parole in 2031 and now volunteers helping his fellow inmates navigate the VR experience. “It’s a nerve-wracking experience going to sit in front of somebody and telling them why I’m good for the job.”

Afterward, volunteers help the inmates process the emotions or traumas that bubbled up during their experiences. Sabra Williams, founder of the nonprofit Creative Acts, calls the VR devices a “hope machine.”

The program stems from a prison arts project that Williams ran that incorporated theater, music, poetry, dance and painting. Watching incarcerated people become engaged in artistic pursuits made her wonder about other ways to “bring the outside world inside.”

She heard from people who had left prison lamenting that technology had passed them by. They felt confounded by simple things like pumping gas, checking out at a supermarket, or going to the ATM.

“And what I hear from them is that it made them feel like they didn’t belong, and that they only belong in prison,” she said.

First Williams’ group dug for footage on YouTube to recreate everyday activities. Soon they were creating their own videos focusing on travel, constructive scenarios, civic engagement, conflict resolution, art, and even meditation “to blow their minds and also educate their minds.”

Technology can help in rehabilitation

Such technology could have an important role to play in rehabilitation and, especially, reintegration into society, said Nancy La Vigne, the dean of Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice in New Jersey. She envisions people who haven’t been in the real world for a long time using VR to act out navigating the DMV or figuring out how to take a city bus.

Another benefit could be a calming effect on stressed-out inmates. La Vigne points to research published by the American Psychological Association that found that incarcerated people who viewed short nature videos showed reduced levels of aggression and were subject to fewer discipline reports.

But with a hefty price tag and limited access, La Vigne worries about the “practical realities,” such as unintended consequences that stem from those who might be left out of the VR experience.

“You can’t just hand them out or sell them at commissary,” La Vigne said.

A former inmate, Richard Richard, first used a VR headset about six years ago when the program was launched and since his release has become a volunteer for Creative Acts. He said he is impressed by how far the technology has advanced. He loves watching his fellow inmates use the devices for the first time and then progress as they deal with trauma and emotional issues.

“You may physically be here, but mentally, spiritually you can actually transcend this environment,” he said.

The group conducts the program, using 100 Oculus headsets donated by Meta, both in the general population and in solitary confinement. Youth offenders are also eligible. It currently runs three times a year at four California prisons, and Williams hopes to expand it throughout the state and across the country.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said in a statement Friday that it “welcomes innovative approaches that help keep our communities safe.”

Virtual reality can ‘heal trauma’

In announcing the introduction of VR at the California Men’s Colony prison in San Luis Obispo County last August, the department said the usage has the potential “to heal trauma, regulate emotional response, and prepare for a safe, successful reentry into society.”

The introductory two-minute trip to Thailand is often emotional for many inmates, some of whom had “never been off their block, let alone out the country,” Williams said.

“And so many times people would take off the headsets and they’d be crying,” she said. “Because they’d be like, ‘I never knew the world was so beautiful.’ ”

The post VR headsets are ‘hope machines’ inside California prisons, offering escape and practical experience appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But what if that person committed a burglary in their late teens, served years in state prison, turned their life around, and now mentors at-risk youth?

Do the details matter? Researchers found that they do.   

A new poll by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research examines California voters’ attitudes toward due process for immigrants with criminal convictions during the Trump administration’s nationwide crackdown on unauthorized immigration. The survey also examined support for how tax dollars are spent and Californians’ views on the state’s sanctuary policies.

It found bipartisan support for ensuring that immigrants facing deportation receive due process, including ones with criminal records.

“This survey shows that there’s clear concern about the current administration’s approach to immigration enforcement,” said Sara Knight, a research director at Goodwin Simon Strategic Research. “I’m not surprised by the results, but I am heartened to see how strong the support for due process is and the growing frustration with treating people inhumanely in our immigration system.” 

President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of mass deportations that targeted criminals, among other things, and he has made good on that. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested more than 160,608 noncitizens nationwide with criminal convictions or pending charges, since his inauguration. 

The Trump administration has sought to expand the use of “expedited removal,” which allows immigration officers to remove certain non-citizens, like those convicted of crimes, from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Researchers say this latest poll by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research, released to CalMatters this week, also reflects waning support, even among a small majority of Republicans for the harshest immigration enforcement practices. It showed  84% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 54% of Republicans agreed that “even if someone does have a record, they deserve due process and the chance to have their case heard by a judge before being deported.” 

The poll was commissioned by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, both pro-immigrant organizations. Goodwin Simon Strategic Research describes itself on its website as an “independent opinion research firm.” Researchers wrote the survey questions and polled more than 1,200 self-identified voters. Knight said the partisan divide among those polled mirrored the party-affiliation split in the electorate. The margin of error was 3 points. 

Some other recent polls echo similar conclusions released in recent weeks, including one released last week by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab that found 61% of registered California voters oppose deporting everyone without legal status. Another public opinion poll by the nonpartisan research firm Public Policy Institute of California found 71% of Californians surveyed said they disapproved of the job ICE is doing. And, a CNN exit poll after the Proposition 50 redistricting election on Nov. 4 found that about three-quarters of California voters said they’re dissatisfied with or angry about the way things are going in the U.S., and 6 in 10 said the Trump administration’s actions on immigration enforcement have gone too far. 

Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, pointed to other recent national polls to argue the public supports Trump’s immigration policies.

“President Trump and (Homeland Security) Secretary (Kristi) Noem are delivering on the American people’s mandate to deport illegal aliens, and the latest polls show that support for the America First agenda has not wavered – including a New York Times poll that nearly 8 in 10 Americans support deporting illegal aliens with criminal records,” McLaughlin said in a written statement.

“The American people, the law, and common sense are on our side, and we will not stop until law and order is restored after Biden’s open border chaos flooded our country with the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens,” she continued.

From prison to ICE

In the more recent Goodwin Simon Strategic Research poll, 61% of voters surveyed said they want California’s prison system to stop directly handing immigrants over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation. 

The state’s sanctuary law does not apply to immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. State prisons have transferred to ICE more than 9,500 people with criminal records since Gov. Gavin Newsom took office in 2019, according to data released to CalMatters. So far in 2025, ICE has picked up 1,217 inmates directly from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the data shows. 

The corrections department also provides ICE with information that helps the agency locate, arrest, and deport people who are not directly transferred. CalMatters obtained and reviewed more than 27,000 pages of emails between state prison employees and ICE. The emails show prison employees regularly communicate with ICE about individuals in state custody, including U.S. citizens. They often share personal details about their families, visitors, and phone calls. Often, these family members have no criminal records and are U.S. citizens

Newsom, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, and Speaker Robert Rivas have all denounced ICE’s broader deportation efforts. But all three have also indicated some level of support for having federal immigration officials remove noncitizens with prior convictions for violent crimes from the community. 

The governor has stated he would veto legislation that seeks to restrict the state prison system’s ability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities for the deportation of felons.

‘We may be deporting the wrong people’

Goodwin Simon researchers found that voters’ opinions change when they find out more details about the personal circumstances of a noncitizen with a past criminal conviction, even for violent crime. Pollsters gave two narratives to voters.

One was about a man who was brought to the United States from Mexico as a child. He got into a fight in his early 20s that left someone injured. The man was sentenced to seven years in state prison, where he turned his life around by taking college classes and helping other inmates get their high school diplomas. When he got out of prison, he was deported to Mexico before an immigration judge could decide on his case. 

The other narrative was about a person closely connected to a man whose family fled genocide in Cambodia when he was a baby. In the U.S., the man was the lookout for a robbery when he was a teenager and served 30 years in state prison. Upon his release, prison officials turned him over to ICE. 

“We may be deporting the wrong people. Although this last person did commit a crime, he has served his time and is now a valuable member of society, so it would be hard to say for sure if a person ever committed a crime deserves to be sent back. That is why the due process is important,” one Republican voter from Sacramento responded to the poll. She shifted her opinion from the view that people with past criminal convictions should be automatically deported to favoring a judge reviewing each individual case after hearing the narratives. 

After voters reviewed both pro- and anti-messaging and the two stories, support for having an immigration judge review individual cases before deportation increased from 84% to 90% among Democrats; from 61% to 74% among independents, but it dropped from 54% to 51% among Republicans. Central Coast voters and Republican women voters increased support for due process by 9 points after hearing the stories. 

The post ‘We may be deporting the wrong people’: New poll shows doubts about immigration crackdown appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In all, the governor pardoned 23 people and commuted the sentences of 10 others. Newsom’s office said that many of those offered clemency had experienced childhood trauma and mental health struggles that impacted the choices they made.

Since he took office in 2019, Newsom has granted 247 pardons, which restore some rights to former felons, such as the ability to serve on a jury or obtain a professional license. He has also approved 160 commutations, which reduce sentences so that an inmate can appear before a parole board and potentially be released.

In this round, Newsom pardoned people convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, attempted murder and drug crimes. His office highlighted that pardons were prompted by what individuals did in the years after those convictions and were at the recommendation of elected officials, law enforcement officers and community leaders.

Among those whose sentences were commuted was Randolph Hoag, who was 28 years old in 1990 when he was convicted in Los Angeles County of murdering his girlfriend’s ex-husband. The Times reported that Hoag, a truck driver, shot Charles Sweed six times in the back before running away.

Newsom said Hoag, now 63, has “demonstrated a commitment to his rehabilitation and self-improvement” and is considered “a high medical risk based on his chronic, serious medical conditions.” Hoag will now be eligible to appear before the Board of Parole hearings, which decides whether a person is a risk to the community after considering input from victims, their families and prosecutors.

“This act of clemency for Mr. Hoag does not minimize or forgive his conduct or the harm it caused,” Newsom wrote in his order. “It does recognize the work he has done since to transform himself.”

Sweed’s sister, Cremae Sweed, became emotional Friday after learning from The Times that Hoag’s sentence was reduced. She said a prosecutor assured her that Hoag would never be released. Her brother, who had a 5-year-old daughter, served in the Marines and owned a tow truck company. Her family was never the same after his death, she said.

“My brother has been dead longer than he was alive, and [Hoag] is still alive,” she said. “He deliberately killed another man, so no, I don’t want him out, and he shouldn’t come out.”

Many of those granted clemency Friday were young adults when they committed their crimes, including Christian Rodriguez, who was 19 when he killed one victim and injured another in 1996. Rodriguez, 47, will now be eligible to appear before the parole board.

“Mr. Rodriguez has worked as both a youth offender and peer literacy mentor, and correctional officers have commended him for his leadership and rehabilitative gains,” Newsom wrote.

Others whose lengthy sentences were reduced included:

• David Fitts, who was 23 when he shot and injured one victim, while his accomplice shot and killed a second victim in 1992. Fitts was sentenced to life without parole in Los Angeles County. Newsom said Fitts, 56, has “dedicated himself to his rehabilitation” and has received commendations from correctional officers for his work ethic and good conduct.
• Karina Poncio, who was 21 when her accomplice fatally shot one person and injured another during a gang-related confrontation in 2000. She was sentenced in Orange County to life without parole. Poncio, 47, earned three associate degrees while in prison and is training to become a certified alcohol and drug specialist.
• Cleveland Lindley, who was 25 when he was convicted of a 1995 armed robbery. He was sentenced in San Bernardino County to 75 years to life for three counts of robbery and another 30 years of sentence enhancements, Newsom’s office said. In prison, Lindley, 55, participated in a service dog training program and was commended by correctional staff for his compassion, maturity and work ethic.

Citing evidence of childhood trauma, Newsom reduced the sentence of Arthur Battle, who was 18 when he and an accomplice murdered a person in a contract killing in 2006. He was sentenced in Sacramento County to life without parole plus a 25-years-to-life sentence enhancement.

Newsom’s office said Battle had adverse childhood experiences, a term used to describe a range of traumatic events that can impact a person’s physical, mental and social health.

While in prison, Battle earned his GED, took college courses and works as an aide to inmates with disabilities. Battle, 37, had his sentence commuted to 21 years to life so he can appear before the Board of Parole hearings.

The post Newsom offers clemency to 5 inmates serving life without parole appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

If prisoners decide to stop reporting to their assigned jobs, or if they attempt to prioritize educational or rehabilitative programs during their mandated work hours, they won’t simply risk losing the job — they face disciplinary infractions. For lifers, a writeup documenting refusal to work spells almost certain doom toward hopes of parole.

“If you don’t go to work, we’re gonna punish you – and they do,” said J Vasquez, a former prisoner who is now an activist with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. “I remember the first time I saw a man cry, like he broke down because he had just lost his mother. And he was still forced to go to work under threat of punishment. It’s like the guy can’t even take a day off or a couple of days to grieve.

“These are the type of things that really undermine people’s healing, undermine rehabilitation — and really, it doesn’t make much sense, right?”

California voters are now deciding whether to ban those compulsory assignments for people in jail or in prison. Proposition 6 would change the state constitution to repeal a provision that has allowed forced labor as a form of criminal punishment since the state’s founding. 

California lawmakers placed the measure on the ballot with nearly unanimous votes, and passionate activists are campaigning for the initiative around the state.

But it’s far from certain that the measure will become law. Limited polling on the initiative shows likely voters are leaning against it.

“It’s an early first read,” said Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California, which released a poll last month that showed 50% of likely voters opposing Prop. 6. “I wouldn’t say it’s losing. In the field right now before the election, that’s where it gets interesting.”

No one organized a campaign to oppose Prop. 6, and yet the measure appeared to face an uphill climb as mail-in voting began this month. 

“It’s scary and frustrating,” said Vasquez. “It’s scary, because you don’t get many shots to run a ballot measure.”

Low-budget campaign for Prop. 6

Now, supporters are organizing phone banks and speaking of their lived experience whenever they can. It’s a low-budget effort, with supporters raising about $1.1 million for the measure. 

“Once we message this, people begin to understand what we’re talking about,” said Matt Reilly, Prop. 6’s lead political strategist. “We have terrific grassroots organization in various L.A. communities. We want people affected by this to be the voice for our campaign.”

Prop. 6 landed on the ballot after a similar proposal failed in 2022. The state Finance Department at the time estimated it would cost $1.5 billion because the state might have to pay prisoners more money for their work. Today, most of them earn less than 74 cents an hour. 

This year, supporters of the proposal adjusted it to continue voluntary work assignments with pay determined by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Several other states, including Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee and Vermont, recently have banned forced labor in prisons. Some activists characterize the campaigns as efforts to wipe out a legacy of slavery; and California’s measure moved forward after the state’s Reparations Task Force drew attention to the harmful effects of discriminatory policies against African Americans. 

Prop. 6 supporters say the measure would compel state prisons to prioritize rehabilitative programming rather than busywork that does not necessarily help someone for life after incarceration. 

“When a person has access to rehabilitation, we’re all safer. Right now, we spend $14 billion per year on prisons, with a failure rate of 70% in terms of recidivism. When we talk at a high level about these facts, we win people over,” said Jay Jordan, founder of the advocacy group Center for Social Good.

California’s total corrections budget is expected to top $18 billion this year, with $14 billion coming from the state general fund. About 42% of prisoners released in 2019 were convicted of new crimes within three years, according to the state’s most recent report on recidivism. 

Is Prop. 36 influencing polling on forced labor?

Democratic Assemblymember Lori Wilson of Suisun City, who sponsored the bill that placed Prop. 6 on the ballot, said the measure could be lagging because of broad support for another criminal justice initiative on the November ballot, Proposition 36. 

Polls show voters favor Prop. 36 by wide margins. It would lengthen criminal sentences for certain drug and theft charges, and it would steer some people convicted of multiple offenses to treatment instead of incarceration.

“Prop. 36 is messing with the numbers out there,” Wilson said, arguing that support for the better-publicized Prop. 36 could be influencing voters’ first impressions of Prop. 6.

The measure to ban forced labor in prisons does not have a big warchest for advertising, but a number of large public employees unions and Democratic Party leaders have endorsed it. 

Wilson said winning over undecided voters is an “easy conversation” when supporters get an opening to talk with someone. 

“Rehabilitation lines up with our goals. We’re saying we want them to be rehabilitated, but if we continue forcing them to work, then we’re not making it the priority,” she said. 

“I’ve never seen a judge – when sentencing a person to prison – they never sentence them to work. This is part of that original sin of slavery when slaves were brought to our state and worked alongside prisoners,” she continued.

The post No one is fighting a proposition to ban forced labor in California prisons. Why it could still fail appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That includes 216 deaths in custody in San Bernardino County and 226 deaths in Riverside County, according to Inland Empire Lives Lost, a report released in early October by Care First California. 

“Advocates across the state are demanding accountability for in-custody deaths as there is a tendency by law enforcement to downplay or outright deny their role in these deaths,” the report stated.

The authors analyzed public records from the Attorney General’s Office from January 2011 through December 2022.They counted at least 2,312 people who died while in custody in California. About 19% of those deaths occurred in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, although the Inland Empire makes up about 12% of the state’s population.

Its disproportionate death rate is consistent with a CalMatters investigation by CalMatters reporters Nigel Duara and Jeremia Kimelman. They concluded some of the state’s deadliest jails are in Riverside County and counted 45 people who have died in lockup there since Jan. 1, 2021.

The most dangerous period for inmates is before they get through trial, Care First reported.  Statewide only 14% of deaths happened after sentencing. Nearly a quarter of deaths happened during arrests, and 40% took place during the first week in jail, the report found.

Why is that first week so deadly? 

“When you’re bringing someone in who has documented mental health concerns and they’re put in an isolated and not well monitored cell, the early days of incarceration are vulnerable,” said Marcella Rosen, media coordinator for the nonprofit. 

The Lives Lost report didn’t analyze causes of death because of disputes over how they’re recorded and categorized.

“A lot are listed as natural deaths, and we have problems with that terminology since most deaths are preventable if given proper care,” Rosen said. 

Broadly speaking, people often die in custody from suicide, overdose, disruption of medication or injuries sustained during arrest, she said. 

The organization recommends several ways to prevent those deaths, including ending the cash bail system, enforcing the right to an immediate trial, creating diversion programs for people with mental health or substance use conditions and oversight by coroners who are separate from sheriff’s departments, Rosen said.

The post Inland Empire has high number of jail deaths appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The poll, released Wednesday evening, shows that 71% of voters are likely to vote yes on the initiative, while 26% would vote no. California Republicans favor the ballot measure the most, with 85% saying they would vote yes. About 63% of Democrats and 73% of independents also said they would vote yes.  

A “yes” vote on Prop. 36 would roll back provisions of Prop. 47, a voter-approved initiative that reduced some felonies to misdemeanors and set a $950 threshold for shoplifting charges.

Proposition 36 would also create a new treatment-focused court process for some drug possession crimes and require courts to warn people convicted of selling or providing illegal drugs to others that they can be charged with murder if they keep doing so and someone dies, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst Office.

“When asked how important the outcome of the vote on Proposition 36 is, three in four likely voters say it is very (41%) or somewhat important (36%). Those who would vote yes on the measure are three times more likely than those who would vote no to call it very important (51% to 16%),” according to the study.

Despite millions being allocated by Gov. Gavin Newsom to cities and counties targeting organized retail crime, shoplifting crimes continue to be an issue.

A study by the Council of Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan research organization, showed that shoplifting incidents in New York and Los Angeles had increased by over 60% between 2019 and the middle of 2023.

Recently, Newsom signed a “smash and grab” law that would increase penalties for individuals who take, damage, or destroy property while committing any felony.

The study also evaluated likely voters’ views on other ballot measures, such as Prop 3, which would enshrine marriage rights in the state constitution, and Prop 35, which would provide permanent funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services.

The poll was conducted between Aug. 29 and Sept. 9 among 1,071 likely voters. The sampling error is plus or minus 3.7%.

The post California voters overwhelmingly support Proposition 36, new study says appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.