California news is starting to give me headaches.


California prisons may be forced to let out thousands of sex offenders on early parole, despite Gov. Jerry Brown’s promises that no such thing would happen.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner’s ruling relates to the state’s recent referendum on Proposition 57 that orders California prisons to consider early parole for non-violent offenders, the Los Angeles Times reported. Brown, a Democrat, had promised voters that non-violent sex offenders would not see the benefits of the bill, but Sumner’s ruling strikes down the exclusion in part.

Now, those convicted of pimping minors, incest, or child pornography possession are eligible for release.

“If the voters had intended to exclude all registered sex offenders from early parole consideration under Proposition 57, they presumably would have said so,” Sumner told reporters.


Sumner ordered that the exclusion be pared down to only affect those currently serving time of a non-violent sex offense, cutting off its effect for future inmates. He also ordered that any sex offender who has served time for their offense but is now serving time for another offense must be eligible for early release.

California’s prisons hold roughly 20,000 sex offenders, more than half of whom committed non-violent offenses. Janice Bellucci, the president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, filed the lawsuit challenging Prop. 57 on behalf of those sex offenders, claiming there was no language in the law indicating in exclusion, merely a promise from Brown.

“Until they figure something else out, they have to consider anybody convicted of a nonviolent offense even if it was a sex offense,” Bellucci told The Associated Press. “We believe we’ve won a battle, but the war continues.”



http://dailycaller.com/2018/02...enders-early-parole/

"We have to pass it, so we know what's 'not' in it." Paraphrased.

It's certainly clear where The Wall should be constructed.

Get into a conversation with any mentally challenged liberal and they will find a way to defend it. As part of their release requirements, they should be mandated to remain in the state of California or be guilty of parole violation.

Typically, we tend to prefer judges who rule on the law, rather than their feelings.
The critical text of the law is:

quote:

Parole Consideration: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.

In this case, the law does not contain any language excluding sex offenders from its coverage. As such, the judge rightly and properly agreed with the plaintiffs that "nonviolent felony offense' includes certain kinds of sex crime, and that if the state had intended to exclude sex offenders, it could have put that in the law.

Anything else is either the judge legislating from the bench, or the judge allowing state administrative officials to enforce laws differentially, with bias against certain classes of felon.

The problems here come from the idiots who drafted the law and the voters who passed it, not from the judge for forcing the state to adhere to the actual language of the law.

Every now and then, a judge actually does what they are supposed to do; enforce the law as written. If folks don't like that, amend the law.

The CA votard strikes again.

good for them

the state of snowflakes, fruits and nuts and other miscellaneous flakes is still digging the hole...

I wish them all of the ills they so richly deserve

I’m surprised that no one has yet suggested the obvious: that this was the intention all along.

Heck its California, let'em all out. I don't care. Just make sure to keep them there.

"We believe we've won a battle but the war continues". What kind of scum thinks like that and then even boasts about it.