By Kathy Lewis
Oct 8, 2021
“If sentence enhancements were applied fairly, this wouldn’t be an issue,” she said. “However, data shows that in California, you are much more likely to receive a sentence enhancement if you are Black. SB 81 tells our courts: Let’s stop unfair sentences and use enhancements only when necessary to protect the public.”
The California State Sheriffs’ Assn. opposes SB 81 “because it will likely result in many otherwise appropriate sentence enhancements being dismissed,” said Cory Salzillo, the group’s legislative director.
A companion measure signed by Newsom, SB 483, allows the retroactive repeal of sentence enhancements for prior prison or county jail felony terms. The governor also signed Assembly Bill 333, which restricts the use of sentence enhancements for alleged gang crimes.
Sen. Sydney Kamlager (D-Los Angeles) said her measure aims to reduce the list of crimes allowing gang enhancements to be charged, prohibit the use of the current charge as proof of a pattern of criminal gang activity, and separate gang allegations from underlying charges at trial.
The senator said that current gang enhancements have weak definitions and that 92% of people with gang enhancements in the state are people of color.
Kamlager said the bill is “a step forward in prioritizing due process within our criminal legal system” that will result in taking “the first step in addressing the pain unfairly and egregiously inflicted by gang enhancements upon California’s communities.”
The measure was opposed by the California District Attorneys Assn., which said it shows a misunderstanding of the way street gangs operate by requiring prosecutors to show a crime was committed to advance a gang as an organization.
“Street gangs don’t operate that way,” said El Dorado County Dist. Atty. Vern Pierson, president of the association.
“We are seeing crimes throughout the state of California up dramatically directly related to gangs,” Pierson said. “Unquestionably [the new law] will hamper our ability to go after criminal street gangs.”
Newsom signed a measure Tuesday that ends mandatory prison and jail sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. SB 73 was written by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
The state adopted the mandatory sentences during the so-called war on drugs, and Wiener said they deny judges the discretion to order probation for nonviolent drug offenses rather than prison or jail sentences.
“If we are serious about ending the war on drugs, which has been a racist policy failure, then we must start by expanding alternatives to incarceration for those who commit nonviolent drug offenses,” Wiener said. “It’s simple: Judges should not be forced to send someone to jail if they think noncarceral options are more fitting.”
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Content retrieved from: https://editorials99.com/newsom-signs-bills-restricting-sentencing-enhancements-for-many-crimes/.
About Post Author
Ask Vern if he is going to honor AB 1475 and remove all the mugshots and wanted videos that are still up on his social media sites.
These gang enhancements do nothing to stop organized crime. A gang is defined as simply three or more people involved together in crime, and so the criteria is very vague and often applied to people who have no affiliations. it is a joke really. Certainly it targets groups of people, low income minorities. A persons living situation should not be used against them. It is neither here nor there.
Good Morning Rusty, I don’t need to ask Vern as he has already done so.
But that brings up a great question that I will explore in Editorial: What does and does not AB1475 mean?
I.E.
A) Not everything on the Internet is “Social Media;”
B) There are MANY exceptions to the Prohibition on posting Mug Shots;
C) This law does not apply to Private [non-governmental Agencies] enterprises.
This means I can capture a Mug Shot from an Agency Public Information Online presence, make it a News Story with the image, and post a link to the story on Social Media. I can leave it up as Long as I want until someone asks for it to be removed – and meet the standard set forth.
[Incidentally, I have honored request that meet this new criteria for years before it was thought of as law. Common decency. Getting charged with a crime is time sensitive so if so measure of time passes and no court action has taken place, or it was dismissed then it is no longer socially beneficial but simply personally prejudicial. This is not a feeling I had years ago as a matter of fact an arrest was made. It mattered not if it was even justified, a matter of fact is that the arrest was made by a Public Agency and that is what I reported. But over time I softened on that to see that this is a Time Sensitive issue and after a reasonable amount of time passes, it is no longer an issue.]
BUT, back to the issue at hand, what exactly does AB 1475 do, and what does it Not do.
Cris.