Dear California State Legislature:
AB 87
Recently Assemblyman Mark Stone submitted a bill which "clarifies" peremptory challenges based on a juror's disability, ethnic group or genetic information" . . . really? And here I thought a Peremptory Challenge was a right in jury selection for an attorney or prosecutor to reject a certain number of jurors without stating a reason. So what part of that needs to be clarified?
I know you folks in the State Capital are not so short between the ears that you would put some kind of condition on a challenge that requires no justification! AB 87 must mean that an attorney is barred from disqualifying a juror for "cause" based on some sort of handicap or sexual preference - but then, as far as I know, an attorney is already barred from this type of activity. So why is the State's time being wasted with such a proposal?
AB 512 - another bill submitted by Mark Stone.
Do you folks really think that tripling early-release credits because inmates participated in rehab and vocational training is going to decrease "recidivism?" It certainly will reduce the prison population if that is the real reason for this legislation.
Possibly you might recall the realignment bill, AB 109 which resulted from a Federal mandate to reduce prison populations. A Feb. 25, 2013 Associated Press article revealed that thousands of California parolees, many of them sex offenders, were removing court-ordered GPS monitors resulting in more than 3,400 arrest warrants. Because many counties are under court orders to reduce jail populations, parole violators are often freed within days, or even hours, of arrest; accordingly, there is little risk of serving time by removing GPS devices because state prisons and local jails are too full to hold them.
It appears this realignment program is poorly planned, under-funded and a hasty solution to a federal mandate at the expense and peril of local communities. It is time to consider other options. Accordingly, I suppose the object here is to reduce prison population through one more piece of legislation.
So why not make a whole bunch of illegal activities legal? There would be fewer arrests, the court system would experience relief from its current heavy load and the public might pay less taxes.
Has everyone forgotten? The justice system came into existence because there was an imminent need to prosecute and imprison thugs, thieves, racketeers and murderers because taking them off the street just might prevent further harm to others. Rehabilitation was determined to occur when prison inmates came to realize there were consequences for their wrongful acts.
California passes a thousand or more laws per year - Why? Do you think you are elected merely to pass a law? Is it some form of immortality to get your name on some piece of legislation?
California has so many laws that a small business has to hire an accountant and an attorney just to stay out of jail. And labor laws have made employees too expensive to hire which accounts for the fact that serve yourself stations are appearing in grocery stores and large chain stores.
What we need is less laws! As an example: what about the legislation passed to out-law speed traps? Now local police are reluctant to write up traffic violations because the fines derived from these tickets go to the State of California - and yet, the police officer is on the hook for time and expense to go to court if he should write up a ticket - just another expense for the city.
A small independent repairman can no longer charge for his services if the over-all bill exceeds $500. What's that all about? It's just another opportunity for licensed contractors to rip off the local homeowner.
I never thought I would see the day that a person could no longer charge for his labor!
There are so many extraneous and unnecessary laws - so why not spend some time and do us all a favor by eliminating some of that crap!