Los Angeles is screwed

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

As predicted, once uber progressive zealot Gascon won the DA race Los Angeles County would be eff'ed.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/12/07/la-county-da-gascon-cash-bail-death-penalty/

Some highlights;

Attorneys who have clients behind bars awaiting trial on any of the affected offenses can immediately schedule a hearing to revisit bail and his office won’t contest their release.

Gascon, 66, also told reporters he is taking the death penalty “off the table” and will seek to re-sentence inmates on death row to life in prison.

The former San Francisco prosecutor also declared he won’t file any gang enhancements in criminal complaints, saying they undermine rehabilitation, exacerbate racial inequities and unnecessarily crowd jails and prisons.

He also pledged to immediately end the practice of charging minors as adults, and will make victims’ services available to families of those shot and killed by law enforcement officers.

There's a lot more that's a lot worse, but I can't post them here as they rely on documents I cannot freely post here.  Suffice to say that juveniles will now be able to run rampant.  The most a juvenile offender will be able to get for murder is a nine month camp commitment.  Juveniles will no longer be charged with misdemeanor offenses, so they can shoplift and vandalize with impunity.  While I am insanely grateful I have moved out of that county I can't help but feel that my entire professional life has been in service to nothing.  I feel the worst for the myriad victims of crime that these "progressive" policies will cause, the lives that will be lost and the lives disrupted by injury and financial loss.  I can honestly say that this day is the lowest of my professional life.  Before any of my detractors use this situation to gloat, please remember the victims of these crimes.  They didn't deserve this, even if they mistakenly voted for this garbage human being.


EDIT:

I forgot to add this little nugget:

As that city’s lead prosecutor, Gascon authored a ballot measure to reduce some felonies to misdemeanors, including some thefts, which led San Francisco to have the nation’s highest property crime rate per capita in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.

[Vas Deferens]

That juvenile bit sounds like a bit much. But, even my agnostic ass has always thought the death penalty is the wholly immoral.

Hang in there bud. Re-evaluate after 6 mos

[Au165]

Cash bail should not be legal anywhere in this country. Someone's freedom before they are tried by a jury of their peers should not be based on if they can afford it or not. The death penalty should not exist as to execute one innocent person outweighs any justice delivered to every other who was executed "justly". The minors thing not a fan of completely removing the option.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2020, 09:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: Cash bail should not be legal anywhere in this country. Someone's freedom before they are tried by a jury of their peers should not be based on if they can afford it or not. The death penalty should not exist as to execute one innocent person outweighs any justice delivered to every other who was executed "justly". The minors thing not a fan of completely removing the option.

The death penalty does exist in CA and it’s not up to one guy to decide it doesn’t. Anyway it’s not like someone is actually going to be executed in CA. Plenty of governors across the country take it upon themselves to decide. As if they weren’t aware it existed when they ran.

[Au165]

(12-08-2020, 10:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The death penalty does exist in CA and it’s not up to one guy to decide it doesn’t. Anyway it’s not like someone is actually going to be executed in CA. Plenty of governors across the country take it upon themselves to decide.  As if they weren’t aware it existed when they ran.

The power of the pardon does actually mean it is up to one person to decide or not. All governors know this power exists when they run.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2020, 10:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: The power of the pardon does actually mean it is up to one person to decide or not. All governors know this power exists when they run.

I’m talking about the DA there, and saying the death penalty is off the table.

And yes governors have the power of the pardon but that’s not what they are doing. They just refuse to sign the warrants.

[Au165]

(12-08-2020, 10:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m talking about the DA there, and saying the death penalty is off the table.

And yes governors have the power of the pardon but that’s not what they are doing. They just refuse to sign the warrants.

He has the sole discretion to seek the death penalty within his jurisdiction per California law, so again yes it is up to him. If the law wanted it any other way they would have written it some other way to not allow such discretion.

...which is also within their powers.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2020, 10:45 AM)Au165 Wrote: He has the sole discretion to seek the death penalty within his jurisdiction per California law, so again yes it is up to him. If the law wanted it any other way they would have written it some other way to not allow such discretion.

...which is also within their powers.

But he’s not doing that. He’s taking it off the table before it ever happens. He’s using zero discretion. I’m not saying it’s illegal, but as a county official he is a representative of the state and should not take it upon himself to in effect abolish the death penalty in his jurisdiction by saying he won’t even consider it. Hell I believe a juror in a death penalty case has to swear that they are capable of giving a death sentence.

[fredtoast]

-Death penalty does nothing to reduce crime rate.

-Juvenile system is supposed to be about rehabilitation instead of incarceration. I don't know what the juvenile laws are in California, but I seriously doubt most juveniles were being charged as adults and locked up before these changes. And if the proper programs are put in place these changes could reduce the crime rate in the long term.

This post is the equivalent of the moral majority crying about how the institution of marriage in America was destroyed when they allowed same sex marriage. It is just supposition based on a biased opinion.

[Au165]

(12-08-2020, 10:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But he’s not doing that. He’s taking it off the table before it ever happens. I’m not saying it’s illegal, but as a county official he is a representative of the state and should not take it upon himself to in effect abolish the death penalty in his jurisdiction by saying he won’t even consider it. Hell I believe a juror in a death penalty case has to swear that they are capable of giving a death sentence.

Which is fully within his power, and as an elected official people who voted for him knew he would do this and still chose to elect him. If they change their mind on how he legally and willfully carries out his position they can replace him in the future. If the legislative branch did not wish to afford such great power to a singular county official they wouldn't have given it. If they now see the errors of their legislation they can choose to change that power. 

They have given him the discretion to pick and choose and he is simply telling you upfront, he chooses to not seek it. He could pretend each to time think about it and ultimately ends up at the same conclusion if it makes people feel better.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2020, 11:00 AM)Au165 Wrote: Which is fully within his power, and as an elected official people who voted for him knew he would do this and still chose to elect him. If they change their mind on how he legally and willfully carries out his position they can replace him in the future. If the legislative branch did not wish to afford such great power to a singular county official they wouldn't have given it. If they now see the errors of their legislation they can choose to change that power. 

Oh I understand all that. Just don’t like it when someone decides ahead of time that something is completely off the table.

[BmorePat87]

Tomorrow's lesson is actually "Is Capital Punishment Constitutional?"


They're going to use existing case law and the 8th amendment to argue their position.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-08-2020, 11:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Tomorrow's lesson is actually "Is Capital Punishment Constitutional?"


They're going to use existing case law and the 8th amendment to argue their position.

It all depends on the definition of cruel or unusual. I found it odd that the Supreme Court limited it to murder. I don’t know how it’s not cruel or unusual for murder but is for any other crime no matter how heinous. I’m not saying I’m for it in non-murder cases, just curious what they based that line on. Of course I’ve always thought attempted murder should be treated the same as murder. You shouldn’t benefit because your victim was fortunate enough to survive or because you can’t aim a gun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-08-2020, 10:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: -Death penalty does nothing to reduce crime rate.

No, it doesn't.  Going after the low hanging fruit I see.

Quote:-Juvenile system is supposed to be about rehabilitation instead of incarceration.  I don't know what the juvenile laws are in California, but I seriously doubt most juveniles were being charged as adults and locked up before these changes.  And if the proper programs are put in place these changes could reduce the crime rate in the long term.

No, but the murderers were.  Under the new rules the most they can now receive for even the most heinous murder is incarceration to the limit of juvenile jurisdiction, which is age 25.  There's a lot more things I can't discuss because they're based on documentation that I can't verify is public knowledge, but that alone is sickening

Quote:This post is the equivalent of the moral majority crying about how the institution of marriage in America was destroyed when they allowed same sex marriage.  It is just supposition based on a biased opinion.

You sincerely make me ill.  Not only are you ignoring other parts of the OP (as usual) but you're allowing your personal opinion of me to taint your position on this.  That you can be so blasé about policies that will result in the victimization of many more people is sickening.

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

For those that don't know this "person" was previously the DA of San Francisco County. This county is rather different in that it is, essentially, the city of San Francisco, and has a population of just under 900k. His policies turned that city into a complete shit hole, but the results will be such worse in Los Angeles County, which has a population of over 10 million.


Also, for those who don't know, the reason the law changed to allow for the possibility of sending a juvenile to adult court (there is a lengthy court process that occurs before this is decided and it can only be done for people of a certain age for a certain class of serious felonies) is that the gangs were using juveniles to commit all/most of their homicides. The gangs are already discussing openly how beneficial this guy is going to be to their "business". When I determine if I can disclose the rest of this guys radical actions I'll certainly do so. Suffice to say juvenile crime is going to run rampant as most consequences are going bye bye.

[BmorePat87]

(12-08-2020, 12:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It all depends on the definition of cruel or unusual. I found it odd that the Supreme Court limited it to murder.  I don’t know how it’s not cruel or unusual for murder but is for any other crime no matter how heinous. I’m not saying I’m for it in non-murder cases, just curious what they based that line on. Of course I’ve always thought attempted murder should be treated the same as murder. You shouldn’t benefit because your victim was fortunate enough to survive or because you can’t aim a gun.

I don't think limiting it to murder and banning it for something heinous like rape is legal gymnastics since we can argue that punishment should be proportional to the crime, however, I do agree that the response to attempted murder should mirror murder more closely. Your ineptitude at killing doesn't change the intent to kill, but like everything, there needs to be flexibility and nuances need to be taken into consideration. I'm not for mandatory or one-size-fits-all responses.

I disagree with the practice of execution for the sole fact that we know innocent people are killed. However, it's also more expensive and doesn't reduce crime, so more reason for me to no support it. I don't tell them any of this, though. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-08-2020, 01:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think limiting it to murder and banning it for something heinous like rape is legal gymnastics since we can argue that punishment should be proportional to the crime, however, I do agree that the response to attempted murder should mirror murder more closely. Your ineptitude at killing doesn't change the intent to kill, but like everything, there needs to be flexibility and nuances need to be taken into consideration. I'm not for mandatory or one-size-fits-all responses.

I disagree with the practice of execution for the sole fact that we know innocent people are killed. However, it's also more expensive and doesn't reduce crime, so more reason for me to no support it. I don't tell them any of this, though. 

I agree and have been on record for being anti-death penalty for some time.  Partially for reasons you've explained, but also because I think being imprisoned until you die is a worse fate.  That being said, and I'm not trying to tell you guys what you can't discuss, but the death penalty position for this radical is by far the least extreme, or as I put it earlier, low hanging fruit.

Fred, as usual, is accusing me of being reactionary because, well it's pretty much reflex for him at this point.  Here's the thing, none of this radical DA's policies will affect me personally, or at least they are unlikely to do so.  What bothers me is that thousands of people are going to become victims of crime that otherwise wouldn't because this guy is softer than Sponge Bob on criminals.  So, while I posted the article in its entirety focusing on "no more death penalty" or an "end to cash bail" (which btw he cannot entirely do as judges set bail not the DA's office) focus instead on ways his policies will embolden criminals, be exploited by criminals and multiply the victims of crime in this county.  I cannot reiterate strongly enough how glad I am that I read the tea leaves on this and bought a home in Orange County this year instead of LA.

[Au165]

(12-08-2020, 12:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course I’ve always thought attempted murder should be treated the same as murder. You shouldn’t benefit because your victim was fortunate enough to survive or because you can’t aim a gun.

People have been failing upwards as long as the U.S. has been around, that is just another example lol.

[fredtoast]

(12-08-2020, 12:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  That you can be so blasé about policies that will result in the victimization of many more people is sickening.

The point I was making is that it is just your OPINION that these changes will result in the victimization of many more people.

I seriously doubt there is going to be a wave of teenagers who will start murdering people just because they will only be locked up until they are 25.

[fredtoast]

(12-08-2020, 12:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You sincerely make me ill.  

You made my day by admitting this.

I never call you names or accuse you of lying.  All I do is disagree with you and point out your clear bias or the lack of factual basis for many of your claims.

If that makes you sick then you need to grow some thicker skin.  But until you do I won't lose any sleep over your suffering.