Source: https://californiapolicycenter.org/category/criminal-justice-reform/
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 18:48:28
Document Index: 201529298

Matched Legal Cases: ['in Fine', '§ 42006', '§ 76000', 'in Fine', 'in fine', 'in Fine', '§1464']

Criminal Justice Reform Archives | California Policy Center
June 9, 2020 /in 2020, Criminal Justice Reform, Education, NEWSLETTER, Uncategorized, UNION WATCH /by Larry Sand
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/George_Floyd_Protest_Columbus_May_30th_George_Floyd_Protest_Columbus_May_30th_IMG_2785_49953566968-2.jpg 564 1406 Larry Sand https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Larry Sand2020-06-09 09:28:452020-06-23 12:50:43Correcting evil with insanity
Penalty Assessment Fees Report
October 23, 2019 /in Criminal Justice Reform, Finance, Public Safety, Research Studies, Special Interest Corruption /by California Policy Center
Investigating the relationship between stressed public finances and rising misdemeanor fines and penalties
By Reiss Becker, David Vasquez, Zane Zovak
California Policy Center analysts have documented the state’s collapsing public finances over the past few decades – not just the rising level of public debt, but the subsequent effects of crumbling infrastructure, slashed government services, and rising taxes.
More recently we’ve noted the transformation of law-enforcement into state debt-collectors seeking a source of revenue for cash-strapped state and county governments.
This is more significant than the unethical incentivizes quota systems encourage as they motivate police to issue a greater number of traffic tickets. What we’ve identified is more troubling: throughout California, local officials as well as legislators in Sacramento have been continuously expanding the number of programs funded through traffic tickets with little public accountability or knowledge.
As the table below illustrates, between 1980 (when the state allowed itself to add penalties to fines) and 2000, just two penalty assessments were added to traffic tickets. But in the first 10 years of the 2000s, eight penalty assessments were added. That rapid expansion tracks with the tsunami of pension hikes granted between 1999 and 2002. As California’s government unions continue to boost the costs associated with state and local employee pay and benefits, penalty assessments will likely become the default method of funding for various programs.
(source: California State Auditor Report 2017-126)
Though only the state and county governments may apply these fees, cities are getting into the act in a new and innovative way. The city of Huntington Beach, for instance, has made skateboarding a crime and has crafted new laws to prohibit “drinking in public” – even where “public” is the front yard of one’s home. Last year the city created a new role for an assistant city attorney. His sole job: to speed collections of these fines and to prosecute those who fail to pay.
“A significant number of misdemeanors go unprosecuted,” City Attorney Michael Gates explained, adding that deploying his new prosecutor will “add a lot of teeth to our laws. There will be a whole class of crimes that will now be prosecuted where the (county) DA may not have gotten to them. We will prosecute every one of them until conviction.”
This problem is everywhere in California. In Amador, a county in the Sierra Nevada Mountains just east of Sacramento, the superior court notes that its practice is to hit misdemeanor violators with a surcharge it calls a “penalty assessment” – an additional $26 “for every $10 of the base fine amount or portion thereof as set forth by the California State Legislature.” (If you doubt its authority to do so, the Amador court helpfully directs citizens to Penal Code 1464 and Government Codes 76000, 70372, 76104.6, 76104.7 and 76000.5.)
State lawmakers have their hands out, too. The state’s surcharges on local misdemeanors are remarkable for their randomness. There’s money for the DNA Identification Fund and the State General Fund. The state also gets money for its “Penalty Fund,” a “State Court Facilities Fund” and money for “Building/Maintenance for Courts.” Some of the penalty money pays for court security and a big chunk goes to court automation and general city funds. There’s even money for the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Amador court shows you how, through the magic of the state legislature, your $25 jaywalking ticket becomes a $193 fine. (A sample traffic citation is shown below at the end of the section).
The Orange County Superior Court follows the same formula, but adds bonus penalties for lawbreakers. In addition to the state menu, Orange County adds fees to fund Emergency Medical Air Transport, Emergency Medical Services, and a fee “to fund Night Court operations.” That, Orange County says, is how a $35 speeding ticket becomes a $238 fine.
We believe these fines will lead to increasing mistrust of government in general and of law-enforcement in particular; we are certain they have allowed government officials to largely ignore the real problem in California’s local governments: the high and always-rising cost of government employee pay and benefits, particular public-safety employees.
That problem began with the rise of government unions in the late 1970s. But it accelerated with the passage of SB 400 in 1999: the state law that drove the cost of post-employment benefits for public safety employees up 50%.
Driven by demands to fund these unsustainable benefits, state and local governments are now operating on an entirely new legal principal – the principal that government can, and without limitation, take citizens’ property (in the form of fines) or liberty (by jailing those who will not or cannot pay) for even misdemeanors and traffic citations.
This dramatic expansion of government power pits the public against the police tasked with protecting them. It immiserates the already vulnerable. It undermines the economy, and by extension all California communities. It is a bipartisan problem: conservatives are as likely as liberal public officials to mask this cash and power grab as evidence they are tough on crime and to raise government revenue without raising taxes.
The U.S. Department of Justice found that a similar public-finance strategy contributed to the rioting and strained relations with law enforcement that followed the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson on August 9, 2014. Rarely has it been so obvious that our own government has, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
But in the past few years, we’ve also seen reasons for optimism. Raising misdemeanor fines and fees doesn’t necessarily translate into additional revenue because, as the old saying goes, you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip: where the poor are concerned, boosting the costs of a misdemeanor violations simply means adding additional debt to the ticketed party. Uncollected fines were key in prompting former-Gov. Jerry Brown to ban the suspension of driver’s licenses as a punitive measure. More recently, SB 144, or the Families of Fees Act, seeks to eliminate many of these egregious fines.
But there’s work to be done at the local level, too. To local elected officials interested in rolling back these unconscionable fines, CPC has drafted a model ordinance and resolution to spread public awareness of penalty assessments and to bolster support for reform at the city and county level.
(source: LCCR 2015 report: Not Just a Ferguson Problem)
Using the police to raise revenue for state and local government generates multiple problems throughout our communities:
Distorts the role of the police and undermines public confidence
Using penalties as a revenue source establishes the police force as a revenue-generating agency rather than as a peacekeeping force and creates an unhealthy relationship between officers and citizens. This phenomenon helped fuel tensions in Ferguson, Missouri – frustration that contributed to the death of Michael Brown – offering a grave warning to California of what consequences may arise out of this unethical practice.
Questionable relationship between fees and violations
As is shown in the chart below, only four of the 17 penalty assessments are directly related to the crime; the remaining 13 fees are imposed as funding mechanisms rather than punishments for the crime and the cost they impose on society. Currently, a small fee is added to traffic infractions to support the Fish and Game Preservation Fund – helping fund a worthwhile department but with no connection to any of the misdemeanors committed. The DNA Identification Fund might reasonably expect reimbursement when a DNA test is conducted, but as it currently stands, it is added to all traffic tickets regardless of whether a DNA test was carried out.
Even our courts are incentivized to support these fees
As they currently exist, courts have a perverse incentive to maximize the total amount that can be charged for a fine or penalty assessment. The court that processes the violations for all traffic infractions also determines the civil assessment fee, a fee that goes directly into their court’s budget. The civil assessment fee is charged when violators fail to pay on time and is supposed to be calculated in relation to the individual’s ability to pay. Under state law, the court can charge as much as $300 for the civil assessment fee; because the fee returns directly to the courts, it’s inarguable that courts are incentivized to maximize fees.
A 2018 Federal Reserve survey found that 44% of Americans would struggle to cover a $400 emergency. These fines have left millions of California taxpayers trapped in an endless spiral of debt. Inability to pay promptly has led to additional late fees (typically labelled the “civil assessment fee”), trapping people in court dates, missed work, and additional childcare expenses.
They are an unreliable source of public funding
Many of the government programs funded through penalty assessments depend heavily on those assessments. But revenue from traffic violations is highly variable. Multiple studies highlight the year-to-year rise and fall of penalty revenue, with some years jurisdictions showing a fluctuation of more than 40% in sequential years.
Most penalty assessments are dictated by state lawmakers in Sacramento. But local officials in cities and counties can act directly to limit penalties.
Our model county ordinance (Appendix I) stipulates that the county will not levy optional penalty assessments for night court and the Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund. Additionally, it calls for an end to penalty assessments for programs and funds unrelated to the infraction committed.
Cities aren’t able to block state or county penalty assessment collections – that’s the province of state and county officials. But our model resolution for cities (Appendix II) allows local governments to express their opposition to penalty assessments. In bigger numbers, cities and counties may encourage state lawmakers to make necessary reforms to the system.
COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT REFORM
If you can’t do the time . . . .
Some self-described conservatives have claimed that our concern for misdemeanor violators is misplaced – even on multiple occasions offering the old adage that “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” We note that there’s a more important adage, the one embodied in our Constitution’s 8th Amendment: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The government’s responsibility for maintaining the peace is not an unlimited grant of power.
Funded programs provide valuable services
The biggest objection to our proposal comes from county, city and other local officials who observe that these fees support important government programs. We recognize that often these programs provide a valuable service to the community. But programs with real value should easily count upon voluntary public support rather than coercion. In fact, public officials opposed to raising taxes – or even afraid of raising the possibility of raising taxes – rely on these assessments to appear tough on crime while avoiding the controversy around tax hikes.
Moving away from penalty assessments and shifting the funding to a more public source allows for debate on the merits of these programs. Additionally, it ensures the burden of these programs is shared by all of the community that enjoys the benefits rather than disproportionately falling on traffic violators.
Ultimately, we would like to see the elimination of penalty assessments but recognize that the transition will require time to find suitable alternatives for funding.
Rigid payment methods
Recognizing the growing debt from uncollected penalty fees (shown in table below), we propose that courts make more of an effort to consider and publicize alternative methods for payment of legitimate fines.
(source: LAO 2016 report – Improving California’s Criminal Fine and Fee System)
Fairness in Fines Ordinance
WHEREAS § 42006(a) of the state vehicle code gives the right of the county to levy fines and penalties regarding night court in addition to the base fine excluding vehicle infractions.
WHEREAS § 76000.5(a) of the state penal code gives the right of the county board of supervisors to levy and additional two dollars for every ten dollars of the base fine for vehicle infractions.
WHEREAS the use of a base fine is to discourage illegal behavior and to seek justice. Such purpose of the base fine is not to provide necessary funding to government administrative agencies.
WHEREAS the judicial council has levied extraneous fines beyond the purview of justice.
WHEREAS administrative agencies have become dependent on the levying of such extraneous fines.
Fairness in Fines Ordinance Requirements: A Moratorium On Present and Future Miscellaneous Charges and Fees on County, City and Municipality Citations
Purpose: The elimination of the use of regressive fees and assessments that disproportionately harm citizens as a means to raise revenue for government programs that should be funded through allocations from the municipality’s general fund.
Pursuant of this ordinance, the County of Merced shall adopt a fairness in fines practice beginning no later than eight weeks after passing this ordinance.
Beginning on that date, the county in question shall prohibit levying all penalties, fees, surcharges, and penalty assessments that are not directly and clearly related to the cost of enforcing the traffic violation. Current fines beyond those directly and clearly related to enforcement of the specific violation should no longer be applied to criminal and public offenses, including any and all violations of the vehicle code.
Any and all penalty assessment fees previously applicable but considered miscellaneous outside of the base penalty amount are hereby void. By eliminating additional fees, this ordinance will ensure the fine will serve as a penalty for the violation rather than a source of revenue to fund government operations.
1.2.1.An extension period of 12 weeks may be requested before such additional fines are voided to allow the county board of supervisors sufficient time to identify alternative measures for any and all programs that will face a funding shortfall as a consequence of the prohibition of these penalties. The total time from the date of passage miscellaneous fees are void will not exceed 20 weeks.
1.3.1.Base fine – A monetary sanction imposed in criminal cases as set forth in state law. The maximum base fine varies from violation to violation.
1.3.2.Penalty or Surcharge – An amount added to the base fine and imposed as part of the monetary punishment for a crime.
1.3.3.Fee or Assessment – An amount added to the base fine that is imposed for cost recovery purposes such as covering the cost for court operations in processing a case. Fees are intended to be used for specific purposes.
The following fees or charges should be considered exempt from this ordinance:
1.4.1.Base fine – A monetary sanction imposed in criminal cases as set forth in state law. The maximum base fine varies from violation to violation.
1.4.2.Penalty or Surcharge – An amount added to the base fine and imposed as part of the monetary punishment for a crime.
Fairness in Fines Resolution
Whereas penalty assessments are being used as revenue collection strategy for counties and the state establishing the police force as a revenue collection agency rather than a peacekeeping force and creating an unhealthy dynamic between officer and citizen;
Whereas penalties are an ineffective revenue collection strategy because many citizens simply cannot afford the financial burden resulting in over $10 billion in unpaid debt;
Whereas civil assessment fees are supposed to be based on an individual’s ability to pay and offer alternatives such as community service for indigent citizens to repay their debt; and
Whereas penalty assessments are frequently used to fund various state and county programs that often have little to no relationship to the violation; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the City of Torrance:
urges the California State Legislature to amend §1464 of the State Penal Code to eliminate the state’s requirement for counties and cities to levy additional penalty assessments on violators of various traffic infractions;
encourages agencies receiving funds from penalty assessments to seek alternative sources of revenue to support their programs and eliminate reliance on highly unreliable penalty assessment funds;
recommends redirecting civil assessment fee funds so that the courts aren’t directly receiving benefits from the cases they rule putting revenue incentives at odds with the requirement to consider a violator’s financial circumstances when assessing the civil assessment fee; and
advises state and counties to stop using revenue from penalty assessments to fund programs that aren’t clearly and directly related to the offense committed.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Money.jpg 3456 5184 California Policy Center https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png California Policy Center2019-10-23 10:03:482020-06-23 14:12:46Penalty Assessment Fees Report
July 9, 2018 /in 2018, Criminal Justice Reform, UNION WATCH /by Steven Greenhut
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/stock-photo-street-barrier-urban-scene-police-crime-investigation-tape-cops-cf6f9cbe-2ae9-4aa8-8dc0-9f1be354c6e3.jpg 427 640 Steven Greenhut https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Steven Greenhut2018-07-09 08:53:142020-06-23 13:11:38Sorry, but police unions are just as troubling as other public-sector unions
September 20, 2017 /in 2017, Criminal Justice Reform, UNION WATCH, Unions /by Edward Ring
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CPC-steps-to-improve-accountability-of-law-enforcement.jpg 602 1117 Edward Ring https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Edward Ring2017-09-20 12:18:282020-06-23 13:11:48Steps to Improve Police Training and Accountability
May 30, 2017 /in 2017, Criminal Justice Reform, Unions /by Steven Greenhut
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/1280px-Money_Cash.jpg 851 1280 Steven Greenhut https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Steven Greenhut2017-05-30 08:10:252020-06-23 13:13:58Police misconduct undermines justice and costs taxpayers plenty
September 13, 2016 /23 Comments/in Criminal Justice Reform, Pensions, Unions /by Edward Ring
Earlier this month the New York Times ran an editorial entitled “When Police Unions Impede Justice.” They make the point that collective bargaining agreements for police employees often make it very difficult to hold police officers accountable for misconduct. When you have nearly 1.0 million sworn police officers in the United States, you’re bound to have a few bad apples. According to the NYT, these collective bargaining agreements discourage citizens from lodging misconduct complaints, micromanage investigations, and minimize disciplinary sanctions.
Appreciating Police Officers, Challenging Police Unions, July 26, 2016
Pension Reform Requires Empathy, not Enmity, October 20, 2015
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/pexels-photo-4614152.jpeg 1500 2250 Edward Ring https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Edward Ring2016-09-13 16:45:312020-06-23 14:19:12If Police Unions Were Abolished and Police Associations Were Restored
July 26, 2016 /2 Comments/in Criminal Justice Reform, Unions /by Edward Ring
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/person-protesting-next-to-cops-4508667-scaled.jpg 1707 2560 Edward Ring https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Edward Ring2016-07-26 16:30:572020-06-23 14:24:13Appreciating Police Officers, Challenging Police Unions
June 23, 2015 /1 Comment/in Criminal Justice Reform, Unions /by Edward Ring
“We thought [the employees we fired] were inappropriate to be employees of the city.”
– Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks (ret.), in reference to the termination of corrupt police officers, Rampart scandal (late 1990’s)
About a year ago we published an editorial asking this question, “How much does professionalism cost,” using as an example the tragic death of Kelly Thomas. In that case, six police officers repeatedly struck with batons and tased an unarmed man, who died a few days later of his injuries. Since that tragedy back in 2011, numerous cases of police misconduct have surfaced, many of them with equally tragic consequences. The latest one, while inexcusable, is more farce than tragedy, involving a team of Santa Ana police officers who recently raided a marijuana dispensary in that city.
The misconduct didn’t involve murderous violence, but it did involve blatantly unprofessional behavior. Once the officers secured the dispensary and ejected the staff and customers, they proceeded to disable the security cameras, and, at least according to the video recording from the camera they neglected to destroy, some went on to gobble up marijuana “edibles.” Watch this video and make up your own mind whether or not these individuals are engaging in conduct appropriate for employees of the Santa Ana police department.
Former Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness, on his radio talk show, has frequently discussed the issue of police misconduct. He makes an observation that bears repeating – in a population of over 1.0 million police officers in the United States, it is inevitable that you will have bad apples. It is statistically impossible to have a group of humans that large, where every single individual will be beyond reproach. There will always be a percentage of crooks and thugs who slip through. It can’t be helped.
Critics of police fall roughly into two camps – those who are concerned about police respecting civil rights, and those who are concerned about excessive police pay and benefits. While there’s overlap, these are very distinct concerns. But those who are concerned police overstate the risks of their job in order to justify increasing their pay are often the same ones who overlook the fact that police misconduct can also be overstated. Critics can’t have it both ways. Police fatalities are rare. Police misconduct is also rare.
What can be helped, however, is how police who do cross the line are held accountable.
According to a source at an Orange County blog that covered the pot bust, the supervising officer on the scene was Alex Sanchez, a police sergeant with the city of Santa Ana who in 2013 made $107,952 in regular pay, $27,205 in “other pay,” $16,184 in overtime pay, and earned employer paid benefits of another $68,820. In other words, this officer earned pay and direct benefits during 2013 of $221,162. This rate of pay is not unusual. Take a look at the pay for Santa Ana city employees – note how nearly all of the high paying positions are for police officers.
Citizens have a right to expect better behavior from a police officer who makes this much money. And a police officer who makes this much money should be prepared to be held accountable. In the corporate world, on-the-job drug use, vandalism, or insults directed at a member of a protected status group are all grounds for instant termination. And in the corporate world, despite repeated claims to the contrary by government union propagandists, total compensation packages in excess of $200,000 per year are very unusual. Notwithstanding that incessantly cited handful of rapacious and untouchable Wall Street bankers, corporate managers and executives who make $200,000 or more per year have little or no job security, and are held accountable, and terminated, for transgressions of far less import.
There’s more. When critics of police conduct say police should not consider themselves above the law, they’re right, but they don’t go far enough. Police should not merely obey the law, they should be role models. By their words and deeds they should inspire the rest of us. The destruction of cameras, the needless vandalism, the profanity, and the insults undermine respect for law enforcement, which is the human face of the laws we must obey.
Police unions not only highlight the risk officers face as the reason they deserve excellent pay and benefits, they highlight the professional requirements of the job. Police perform an incredibly difficult job that goes well beyond the physical risk they live with. Every day, they have to deal with uncertain, volatile situations, with agitated individuals and groups, with hostility and disrespect, and with violent criminals. Police work in 2014 America requires more professionalism than ever. That’s why they’re paid like professionals. But with professionalism comes accountability.
Police officers depend on the trust and solidarity of their colleagues. That is a necessary and proper element of an effective police force. But police unions overlay onto that solidarity an us-vs-them mentality, as well as a layer of protection against individual accountability, that at the least may be described as problematic. Police unions, like teachers unions, may consciously proclaim their commitment to the broad public interest, but their organizational agenda invariably pulls them away from the people they serve.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png 0 0 Edward Ring https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Edward Ring2015-06-23 15:38:242020-06-23 13:12:40Can Unionized Police Be Held Accountable for Misconduct?
January 8, 2015 /0 Comments/in Criminal Justice Reform, Unions /by Lucy Morrow Caldwell
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png 0 0 Lucy Morrow Caldwell https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Lucy Morrow Caldwell2015-01-08 08:00:012020-06-23 13:12:54Police Unions Behaving Badly
Does Police Union Power Erode Accountability?
May 3, 2013 /1 Comment/in Criminal Justice Reform, Unions /by Steven Greenhut
The horrific Boston bombings already have led to calls for more security cameras and more police officers, with some Democrats absurdly using this tragedy as a reason to stop the slight sequester-mandated cuts in federal spending growth.
But a series from the Sun Sentinel newspaper in Florida found that “professional courtesy” — i.e., the way police allow other police officers to speed, drive drunk, and violate every manner of traffic law provided they are members of the law-enforcement caste — also has dangerous consequences for the general public.
The newspaper series, announced as a winner of a Pulitzer Prize the same week as the Boston bombing, details the tragedies of essentially giving one group free rein to drive in any manner its members choose. In one incident documented by the newspaper, a 21-year-old girl was driving with her 14-year-old step sister and a deputy accelerated from 24 to 87 miles per hour in 24 seconds as he rushed to aid a fellow officer who had pulled over a driver with — get this — a broken tail light. He T-boned the car, injured the driver, and killed the passenger. The 14-year-old girl’s body was found 37 feet from the accident.
The newspaper found police speeding routinely in excess of 120 miles per hour — not on emergency calls, but simply to get to work or for the fun of it. We’ve all seen it on the highways and there are news stories of tragic accidents with police killing citizens throughout the nation. Many times, off-duty officers drive in the same dangerous manner knowing that fellow officers will give them a pass at the sight of a badge.
Here’s the Sun Sentinel, which reported that 21 Floridians have been killed or maimed by speeding cops since 2004: “Speeding cops are often spared severe punishment in the criminal justice system. Cops found at fault for fatal wrecks caused by speeding have faced consequences ranging from no criminal charges to a maximum of 60 days in jail. Inside many police agencies, speeding isn’t taken seriously until it results in tragedy. Even then, some cops are disciplined but stay on the job — and the road. The dead include seven police officers who crashed at speeds up to 61 mph over the legal limit.”
Meanwhile, in California in particular, police unions have exempted police disciplinary records of misbehaving cops from the state’s public records law so the public never learns about the bad actors in police agencies — the ones who routinely abuse the public or who are involved in multiple car accidents due to their own speeding.
Police unions continue to push for special privileges — not just higher benefit levels, expanded disability pay, and other such benefits, but exemptions from every manner of oversight. Given the power of the police unions among union-friendly Democrats and law-and-order-supporting Republicans, there is no powerful civil-liberties lobby to stand up against this endless drive for more “protections” for those who patrol our communities.
The nation’s crime rates are at 40-year lows. Many studies have been done on the link between more police officers and crime rates and there’s little if any connection between the two. We cannot create a society that is entirely safe — especially from attacks on “soft” targets such as marathons and other such public events.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png 0 0 Steven Greenhut https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Steven Greenhut2013-05-03 08:30:202020-06-23 13:13:14Does Police Union Power Erode Accountability?
October 29, 2012 /0 Comments/in Criminal Justice Reform, Unions /by Steven Greenhut
https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png 0 0 Steven Greenhut https://californiapolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LOGO_v2_white_269x70.png Steven Greenhut2012-10-29 09:47:252020-06-23 13:13:22Fullerton Police Union Intimidates Reform Candidates