"You're linking to a paper published a year and half ago, if that's the correct explanation then why did Tabby send out a Twitter blast to a bunch of observatories, and why did they respond by looking at the star? It's a "family" of exocomets or planetesimal fragments, right? We've known that for a year and half, why redirect all of our telescopes to watch it when it happens again?"
The article was also updated last year -- less that a year ago I believe. As to why everybody is pointing at the star:
"We discuss the necessity of future observations to help interpret the system." -- from the article and summary. Analysis is on going. I'm not saying it's NOT artificial -- I'm saying it's highly unlikely. All things being equal, the (very very very) safe bet is on something "natural" and not "artificial".
And I have no explanation with regards to heat but I assume that the current observations may shed some light on that. If not, maybe again in threeish years with it may happen again.
...we conclude that the scenario most consistent with the data in hand is the passage of a family of exocomet or planetesimal fragments, all of which are associated with a single previous break-up event, possibly caused by tidal disruption or thermal processing. The minimum total mass associated with these fragments likely exceeds 106~\mearth, corresponding to an original rocky body of >100~km in diameter. We discuss the necessity of future observations to help interpret the system.
The latest dimming observations will give give more weight to this -- or maybe toss out this explanation entirely.
" you have absolutely no grounds to assume the weird meteor cloud is more likely - in fact it's less likely since we've got no evidence that such a meteor cloud can form, no theory for how it may have formed and no evidence for their existence."
Asteroid belt. But that's fairly uniform. How about a large body (say a small planet or moon) coming close to a much larger body and getting ripped apart? Say, Shoemaker–Levy 9, for example? And you end up with a grouping of 'bits' of that body ending up in an irregular orbit.
Were there a single instance of hard proof extraterrestrial life -- never mind intelligent life, I think we'd be further along the path to 'maybe it's a big artificial construction' vs. something else.
It requires some diligence but not as crazy as you suggest. The $5 to stop auto top-up is news to me. Must be new. All my services have it' turned off and it was free to turn it off when I did so.
They also have service through a UK/EU provider on their Global SIM product. Latancy in the US not great (like 400-500) but it's pretty stable. I was driving through Sequoia National Forrest my Global SIM phone (unlocked Iphone 5c) was the last to loose connectivity and the first to get it back. It beat verizon and ATT (other phones with our group).
For about $0.99 plus shipping you can get a freedompop unlimited SIM. Their customer service sucks but it's effectively 200 MBs every month for free (just remember to cancel all "promotional" services before the first month ends. You can also hit the forums and exchange email addresses with other freedompop customers to become "Freedompop Friends". Each "friend" basically gets you another 50 MB per month up to an additional 500 MB for a total of 700 MB.
I have one in my iPad mini and it works great.
FP wont be around as long as ATT -- but I've used their services for a few years now and expect them to be around at least a few more before they go belly up or sell their customers. So, for a buck and a bit more I get 700 MBs data. And I can move the sim to any other device I want whenever I want.
Yes, it's much better for all your citizens, as well as all the other businesses of your state to pay a company, for years and years, to do business in your state.
This is the Republican Parties idea of "capitalism".
That's some really funky logic there, pal. The citizens aren't paying anyone anything. They just aren't getting a certain amount of tax revenue from those businesses, but will still receive tax revenue from everyone employed as well as save huge tax draining expenses by not needing to provide for those who are unemployed because those businesses left the state to a state where they could operate cheaper.
Getting negative tax revenue is better than positive tax revenue? This is the fiscal liberal's idea of "fair share" taxes.
"Plus the San Andreas fault is due for a big one, so that's going to be fun."
Actually, this might work for us Californians! When the "big one" finally happens we'll get tons of federal money to help rebuild (just like new!) all the damaged roads, bridges and dams we haven't taken care of ourselves in decades!
"So legal residents never commit tax fraud or identify theft?"
Ever consider reading as a career? Probably a bad idea if you have. If I were you I would work on another skill. This isn't one you seem to posses.
Me: " Those could easily be committed by my neighbors, too. However, if my neighbors are citizens or are in the country legally and can WORK legally then they are far less likely to do so."
And then, me: "People in the country illegally AND working are committing identity left and/or tax fraud."
To be in the country illegally AND working you ARE committing crimes -- by definition. You cannot work without an I9 -- and are either lying or providing fake documents. That means 100% of working illegal aliens are committing crimes JUST by working. Many of which wreak havoc for those who have to untangle someone using their SSN. Never mind the fraud on state and federal taxes being filed for income.
There's a DIFFERENCE when SOME of my neighbors MAY do something illegal and 100% of illegal immigrants who are working ARE doing something illegal.
"It's actually cheaper in the long run to house homeless people than to leave them on the streets. And seriously, the rich are always going to find tax loopholes or tax breaks. Why shouldn't they do something that helps other people instead of just using some loophole that other benefits them?"
I can't speak to the rest of the country but I can about Los Angeles. If someone is homeless and doesn't WANT to be homeless they WONT be homeless for long. There are numerous opportunities to get them in to housing, food, work, and additional assistance as needed.
The PROBLEM is there's a gray area for those with mental problems who refuse assistance as well as drug or other substance abusers. Begging on the street is the fastest way to get money for booze, meth or whatever floats your boat. Any money goes to that -- including rent and food money. They also refuse assistance or refuse to pay for anything the moment they get cash. Things like rent or food or clothing. Either begging or theft.
This is where we need to come up with better terms for "homeless". Like "homeless" vs. "transient". The "homeless" issue has a workable solution in my area. The "transient" solution does not -- and I'm unsure there is a workable solution.
'Yes, but I believe most people think "bad hombres", not "my neighbors"'
I think of identity theft and/or tax fraud among other things. Those could easily be committed by my neighbors, too. However, if my neighbors are citizens or are in the country legally and can WORK legally then they are far less likely to do so.
People in the country illegally AND working are committing identity left and/or tax fraud.
"Do you mean that dialogue and not violence is a better way to solve problems? Most intelligent people know this."
Actually, dialogue is the ideal way to solve problems. However, you need to have two parties willing to talk and compromise. When one or both parties are unwilling to compromise violence is likely inevitable. Most intelligent people understand this.
" 1000 watts of solar is not that hard to achieve"
neither is 10,000. You just need a lot of surface area.
1000 is about 5.5 square meters -- and that will produce about enough water for 1 person per day -- to drink -- never mind tending to food (livestock or crops). Unless we're planning on building a subterranean society of Morlocks living under miles of solar panels I don't think we're at the point where this is practical for anything more than off-grid outback living or helping out small communities of hunter gatherers who happen to live in deserts.
Fun fact: Prop 57 (part of the AB109, Prop 47 Prop 57 trifecta), if you are serving state prison time for multiple felonies related to the same crime that included a violent felony and serving time consecutively, once you have served time for the "violent felony(ies)" you are now magically considered "non-violent" and will be dropped off in county PRCS (probation) once you complete the full sentence (remaining felonies). Example: robbery (violent felony - 6 years), B&E (non-volent -- 3 years -- pick any other associated felony -- doesn't matter) -- Serve about 4 years of the robbery (85% of the sentence + (1+1 time served credit) in jail awaiting trial) then POOF. You are now a non-violent felon and when you finish your remaining 2.5 years you will be going to county probation under PRCS and not parole. Madness.
"Since the person who raped your daughter had "a long history (including violent felonies)", he should have been in prison for those violent felonies, and GP's leniency toward non-violent drug offenders wouldn't apply."
Re-read my post. It's against the mindset and misunderstanding of what many places consider "non-violent drug offenders". Well meaning idiots are passing legislation without considering the consequences. Most "non-violent drug offenders" have a fairly long rap sheet. Most involve robbery (with violence or threat of violence) which is a "violent" felony.
"he should have been in prison for those violent felonies"
He was -- he served his time, went on parole, offended again (this time for a drug offense) less than 1 year after finishing his state supervised parole, went back to state prison and because his LAST offense was non-violent, he was released to AB109 PRCS (probation -- with restrictions on when or if revocation time can be used -- mostly short "flash incarcerations), he was supervised by county probation rather than state parole. He violated the terms of his "probation", got a flash incarceration, was out a few days later, got high with some friends and decided to rob some homes for more drug money, broke in to my home and kidnapped my daughter.
Pre AB109 he would been supervised by state parole and would have likely, with his history, received at least the AVERAGE time for a parole violation (90 days at the time) and have been behind bars that night. AB109 put him back on the streets and laid down "rules" that made it virtually impossible for him to get any meaningful revocation time. It completely defeats the ideas behind parole (help the felon move back to society but pull him back if he's not ready) in favor of AB109 probation which is based on "keep them out of prison at all costs". Once a felon has a history -- particularly one that includes violence, the object should be to get them off the streets easier, not tossing up roadblocks. If they quit offending before they do something that puts them away for the rest of their life, YAY! If not, get them off the streets as often as possible to minimize the damage they can do to their community.
"And finally, since you brought it up so many darn times, what was the end result in your perfect playbook?"
Simple -- once someone has proven an inability to keep from re-offending the object needs to be to take them off the street as easily as possible. Maybe -- just maybe they'll get a clue before they commit a crime that sends them away for the rest of their life while destroying the lives of others -- or maybe we can reduce the amount of harm they do in their communities by putting them behind bars easier while on supervised release. That is the end result of my "perfect playbook".
I've already started trying to get ab109 changes reformed and I'm pushing for the following changes:
1. The 3Ns – (non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenses) will only be sent to PRCS (county probation) if the offender has never had a sexual, serious or violent felony in the past – not just their last offense. 2. Prolific repeat felony offenders will not be sent to PRCS (county probation) if they were last released from prison on any felony (3N or otherwise) and post release supervision and committed their most recent felony with a period of time. I suggest 5 years.
"you can't blame the justice system that let him go on the shoplifting charge. Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense."
Yes I can and it does make sense. That is how parole works. It tries to help someone re-enter society but ALSO remove them if they aren't ready yet. If a criminal with a long rap sheet gets picked up for shoplifting (a violation of their parole), they would likely get 180 days to a year, and probably add 1 year to their time on parole pre AB109. With no rap-sheet, maybe a few days to 30 days.
I can't help that you have you have no common sense on this issue but you appear to take each offense as if it's the ONLY offense when considering actions against the offender. *THAT* doesn't make any sense.
"Unfortunately, I think you read the situation wrong. Your problem is actually exacerbated by jailing non-violent drug offenders, three ways."
Unfortunately, I think *YOU* read the situation wrong. At this point it doesn't matter. Our monster already had a history including violence. The solution isn't to pretend felon's histories don't exist.
If the idea is to get them BEFORE they become violent and rehabilitate them then THAT is where you focus your efforts. You don't pretend they don't have a past and pat them on the head and say "be good".
"Just imagine a world where murderers got 20+ years and people who just possessed some drugs got 8 instead of vice-versa"
Just imagine a con with a history (including murder) after getting released and off probation gets arrested again -- for drugs and got 8 instead of hate. Just imagine them violating their probation (because *NOW* they are on PRCS rather than parole because we CANT look at their past), getting a flash incarceration of 4 or 5 days then getting back out on the streets and killing someone. It has happened. Parole helps people get back in to society and remove them if they aren't ready to get back. PRCS keeps people out of prison -- period. The problem is targeting.
"If it had been drug use or minor dealing, it would not have covered up any earlier violent felony."
You have no idea how AB109 works. It *FORCES* by rule of law felony parolees to county probation -- and prevents the consideration of any past felonies -- with very few exceptions, all revocation time is limited to 6 working days (maximum of 10 days including weekends). Under state supervision a criminals past is considered for all parole violations and all violations have a hearing to determine action -- with a max revocation time of 1 year and extending parole. Under county PRCS (AB109 county probation) only the last felony is considered on who is supervised by state or county. When he violated his "probation" (because AB109 forced him to county supervision with the new rules) our monster was only allowed a "flash incarceration" -- 6 days in the time-out chair in county jail. Under state supervision he would have likely been sent away for 90 days (the average at the time for parole violations) and he would have been behind bars the night he decided to rob my house and kidnap my daughter.
I have become quite knowledgeable on AB109 and the workings of the CA legislature. Trust me -- what you say is wrong.
Fun fact: Prop 57 (part of the AB109, Prop 47 Prop 57 trifecta), if you are serving state prison time for multiple felonies related to the same crime that included a violent felony and serving time consecutively, once you have served time for the "violent felony(ies)" you are now magically considered "non-violent" and will be dropped off in county PRCS (probation) once you complete the full sentence (remaining felonies). Example: Home invasion: robbery (violent felony - 6 years), B&E (non-volent -- 3 years) -- Serve about 4 years of the robbery (85% of the sentence + 1+1 in jail awaiting trial) then POOF. You are now a non-violent felon and when you finish your 2.5 years you will be going to county jail under PRCS and not parole. Madness.
I know what I'm talking about. The problem is that it's a complication issue and most people don't see the giant public safety hole because it requires understanding the convoluted language AB109 used to change CAs penal code -- plus CDCR (California Dept for Corrections and Rehabilitation) lies by misdirection whenever the issue comes up: "X wasn't released early -- X served their full time in state prison" rather than acknowledge they were RELEASED from state supervision to a much lower standard of COUNTY supervision.
We had a Police officer in Whittier killed by an AB109 probationer with a violent past. He had violated the terms of his parole 5 times before he killed his cousin, stole a car and had a shootout with cops that left one officer dead. Under state supervision this felon with a dangerous past would have been back in state prison after the first -- MAYBE the second violation with more than 90 days. Probably 1 year (max under probation) and probably had his probation term extended another 2 or 3 years.
Not in California. Hasn't been for more than a decade. And if they are in prison, I'm guessing there's a monster rap sheet in which case that's exactly where they need to be.
"If what you are saying is that he should have been in prison before the fact to prevent him from having hurt your daughter, that's a kind of pretzel logic I'm not going to even indulge."
You are deliberately being obtuse. He violated his "probation". Under state supervised parole he would have been behind bars for PAROLE violations pre AB109. He would not have been on the streets to commit the crime he committed against my daughter -- if it were allowed to be applied "segregation" would have protected my daughter. The only "pretzel logic" required is to come up with some reasoning where this isn't valid.
The fact that he was on the streets 6 days after violating the terms of his release is a travesty. The laws were changed by folks that apparently seem to think as you do about deterrence and retribution which have undercut our ability to yank out from society those who would harm the innocent and aren't ready to re-enter society.
I get it -- you don't like the system the way it was -- the way it is in most other states. Try to find a way to "fix" people BEFORE they are multiple repeat felons and before they are so "damaged", if that's what you believe is happening to them. The solution isn't to arbitrarily let people out of jail and hamstring our ability to easily put them back in when on post release supervision. THAT is not pretzel logic -- that is the common sense observation of naive legislation.
"You said yourself that this man had a history of violent felonies and was, in the case of your family's ordeal, violent. Terrible story, I'm very sorry to hear, but your anecdote in no way relates to a statement about non-violent drug offenders."
You missed the part where I'm telling you that you need to look at what is considered a "non-violent drug offender". In our state, a "non-violent" anything is based *JUST* on their latest offense now. Yes, our monster had a history -- but new legislation made it impossible to consider that during post release supervision.
Also, most stories about "non-violent drug offenders" in prison statistics completely ignored the offenders history which helped pass the crazy legislation in my state.
"but your outrage is obviously clouding your logic."
Trust me -- it's not. There are four basic reasons society puts people in prison:
1. Retribution – they must pay their ‘debt to society’ 2. Rehabilitation – assist them in re-entering society as a safe and productive member 3. Segregation – they are separated from society for its safety 4. Deterrence – The price to pay to society must try to deter the committing crimes against society
The table on which we rest our machine that attempts to keep society safe and provide a way “back” in to society for those who have hurt the innocent sits upon 4 legs represented by each one of the above reasons.
What we have done is hack off lengths of retribution, deterrence and segregation and lengthened rehabilitation to the point of absurdity. The table is now uneven, unstable and the machine meant to help keep the innocent safe can’t possibly work effectively. Each tilt and rock of that table spills out those who aren’t ready to re-enter society and encourages those who would otherwise be deterred to harm the innocent.
Parole has a purpose -- and it's to make sure the offender is READY to renter society -- and if not, make it EASY to put them back in prison Recent legislation in my state has hamstrung this important role at the expense of public safety.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're linking to a paper published a year and half ago, if that's the correct explanation then why did Tabby send out a Twitter blast to a bunch of observatories, and why did they respond by looking at the star? It's a "family" of exocomets or planetesimal fragments, right? We've known that for a year and half, why redirect all of our telescopes to watch it when it happens again?"
The article was also updated last year -- less that a year ago I believe. As to why everybody is pointing at the star:
"We discuss the necessity of future observations to help interpret the system." -- from the article and summary. Analysis is on going. I'm not saying it's NOT artificial -- I'm saying it's highly unlikely. All things being equal, the (very very very) safe bet is on something "natural" and not "artificial".
And I have no explanation with regards to heat but I assume that the current observations may shed some light on that. If not, maybe again in threeish years with it may happen again.
"_WE_ are extraterrestrial life from the viewpoint of any other life in the universe."
Objection, your honor! Assumes facts not in evidence!
"There's a problem with that - you haven't explained the weird part"
I'm happy with my explanation. I read the article fully now and quite satisfied.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras...
The latest dimming observations will give give more weight to this -- or maybe toss out this explanation entirely.
" you have absolutely no grounds to assume the weird meteor cloud is more likely - in fact it's less likely since we've got no evidence that such a meteor cloud can form, no theory for how it may have formed and no evidence for their existence."
Asteroid belt. But that's fairly uniform. How about a large body (say a small planet or moon) coming close to a much larger body and getting ripped apart? Say, Shoemaker–Levy 9, for example? And you end up with a grouping of 'bits' of that body ending up in an irregular orbit.
Were there a single instance of hard proof extraterrestrial life -- never mind intelligent life, I think we'd be further along the path to 'maybe it's a big artificial construction' vs. something else.
It requires some diligence but not as crazy as you suggest. The $5 to stop auto top-up is news to me. Must be new. All my services have it' turned off and it was free to turn it off when I did so.
They also have service through a UK/EU provider on their Global SIM product. Latancy in the US not great (like 400-500) but it's pretty stable. I was driving through Sequoia National Forrest my Global SIM phone (unlocked Iphone 5c) was the last to loose connectivity and the first to get it back. It beat verizon and ATT (other phones with our group).
They've gotten better on not "screwing up" in the first place.
I don't know where you are looking but I still see $0.99.
https://www.freedompop.com/off...
Maybe you are looking at their GLOBAL sim? Works in several EU countries as well as the North America?
For about $0.99 plus shipping you can get a freedompop unlimited SIM. Their customer service sucks but it's effectively 200 MBs every month for free (just remember to cancel all "promotional" services before the first month ends. You can also hit the forums and exchange email addresses with other freedompop customers to become "Freedompop Friends". Each "friend" basically gets you another 50 MB per month up to an additional 500 MB for a total of 700 MB.
I have one in my iPad mini and it works great.
FP wont be around as long as ATT -- but I've used their services for a few years now and expect them to be around at least a few more before they go belly up or sell their customers. So, for a buck and a bit more I get 700 MBs data. And I can move the sim to any other device I want whenever I want.
That's some really funky logic there, pal. The citizens aren't paying anyone anything. They just aren't getting a certain amount of tax revenue from those businesses, but will still receive tax revenue from everyone employed as well as save huge tax draining expenses by not needing to provide for those who are unemployed because those businesses left the state to a state where they could operate cheaper.
Getting negative tax revenue is better than positive tax revenue? This is the fiscal liberal's idea of "fair share" taxes.
"Plus the San Andreas fault is due for a big one, so that's going to be fun."
Actually, this might work for us Californians! When the "big one" finally happens we'll get tons of federal money to help rebuild (just like new!) all the damaged roads, bridges and dams we haven't taken care of ourselves in decades!
"So legal residents never commit tax fraud or identify theft?"
Ever consider reading as a career? Probably a bad idea if you have. If I were you I would work on another skill. This isn't one you seem to posses.
Me: " Those could easily be committed by my neighbors, too. However, if my neighbors are citizens or are in the country legally and can WORK legally then they are far less likely to do so."
And then, me: "People in the country illegally AND working are committing identity left and/or tax fraud."
To be in the country illegally AND working you ARE committing crimes -- by definition. You cannot work without an I9 -- and are either lying or providing fake documents. That means 100% of working illegal aliens are committing crimes JUST by working. Many of which wreak havoc for those who have to untangle someone using their SSN. Never mind the fraud on state and federal taxes being filed for income.
There's a DIFFERENCE when SOME of my neighbors MAY do something illegal and 100% of illegal immigrants who are working ARE doing something illegal.
"It's actually cheaper in the long run to house homeless people than to leave them on the streets. And seriously, the rich are always going to find tax loopholes or tax breaks. Why shouldn't they do something that helps other people instead of just using some loophole that other benefits them?"
I can't speak to the rest of the country but I can about Los Angeles. If someone is homeless and doesn't WANT to be homeless they WONT be homeless for long. There are numerous opportunities to get them in to housing, food, work, and additional assistance as needed.
The PROBLEM is there's a gray area for those with mental problems who refuse assistance as well as drug or other substance abusers. Begging on the street is the fastest way to get money for booze, meth or whatever floats your boat. Any money goes to that -- including rent and food money. They also refuse assistance or refuse to pay for anything the moment they get cash. Things like rent or food or clothing. Either begging or theft.
This is where we need to come up with better terms for "homeless". Like "homeless" vs. "transient". The "homeless" issue has a workable solution in my area. The "transient" solution does not -- and I'm unsure there is a workable solution.
'Yes, but I believe most people think "bad hombres", not "my neighbors"'
I think of identity theft and/or tax fraud among other things. Those could easily be committed by my neighbors, too. However, if my neighbors are citizens or are in the country legally and can WORK legally then they are far less likely to do so.
People in the country illegally AND working are committing identity left and/or tax fraud.
"Do you mean that dialogue and not violence is a better way to solve problems? Most intelligent people know this."
Actually, dialogue is the ideal way to solve problems. However, you need to have two parties willing to talk and compromise. When one or both parties are unwilling to compromise violence is likely inevitable. Most intelligent people understand this.
" 1000 watts of solar is not that hard to achieve"
neither is 10,000. You just need a lot of surface area.
1000 is about 5.5 square meters -- and that will produce about enough water for 1 person per day -- to drink -- never mind tending to food (livestock or crops). Unless we're planning on building a subterranean society of Morlocks living under miles of solar panels I don't think we're at the point where this is practical for anything more than off-grid outback living or helping out small communities of hunter gatherers who happen to live in deserts.
And "oh":
Fun fact: Prop 57 (part of the AB109, Prop 47 Prop 57 trifecta), if you are serving state prison time for multiple felonies related to the same crime that included a violent felony and serving time consecutively, once you have served time for the "violent felony(ies)" you are now magically considered "non-violent" and will be dropped off in county PRCS (probation) once you complete the full sentence (remaining felonies). Example: robbery (violent felony - 6 years), B&E (non-volent -- 3 years -- pick any other associated felony -- doesn't matter) -- Serve about 4 years of the robbery (85% of the sentence + (1+1 time served credit) in jail awaiting trial) then POOF. You are now a non-violent felon and when you finish your remaining 2.5 years you will be going to county probation under PRCS and not parole. Madness.
"Since the person who raped your daughter had "a long history (including violent felonies)", he should have been in prison for those violent felonies, and GP's leniency toward non-violent drug offenders wouldn't apply."
Re-read my post. It's against the mindset and misunderstanding of what many places consider "non-violent drug offenders". Well meaning idiots are passing legislation without considering the consequences. Most "non-violent drug offenders" have a fairly long rap sheet. Most involve robbery (with violence or threat of violence) which is a "violent" felony.
"he should have been in prison for those violent felonies"
He was -- he served his time, went on parole, offended again (this time for a drug offense) less than 1 year after finishing his state supervised parole, went back to state prison and because his LAST offense was non-violent, he was released to AB109 PRCS (probation -- with restrictions on when or if revocation time can be used -- mostly short "flash incarcerations), he was supervised by county probation rather than state parole. He violated the terms of his "probation", got a flash incarceration, was out a few days later, got high with some friends and decided to rob some homes for more drug money, broke in to my home and kidnapped my daughter.
Pre AB109 he would been supervised by state parole and would have likely, with his history, received at least the AVERAGE time for a parole violation (90 days at the time) and have been behind bars that night. AB109 put him back on the streets and laid down "rules" that made it virtually impossible for him to get any meaningful revocation time. It completely defeats the ideas behind parole (help the felon move back to society but pull him back if he's not ready) in favor of AB109 probation which is based on "keep them out of prison at all costs". Once a felon has a history -- particularly one that includes violence, the object should be to get them off the streets easier, not tossing up roadblocks. If they quit offending before they do something that puts them away for the rest of their life, YAY! If not, get them off the streets as often as possible to minimize the damage they can do to their community.
"And finally, since you brought it up so many darn times, what was the end result in your perfect playbook?"
Simple -- once someone has proven an inability to keep from re-offending the object needs to be to take them off the street as easily as possible. Maybe -- just maybe they'll get a clue before they commit a crime that sends them away for the rest of their life while destroying the lives of others -- or maybe we can reduce the amount of harm they do in their communities by putting them behind bars easier while on supervised release. That is the end result of my "perfect playbook".
I've already started trying to get ab109 changes reformed and I'm pushing for the following changes:
1. The 3Ns – (non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenses) will only be sent to PRCS (county probation) if the offender has never had a sexual, serious or violent felony in the past – not just their last offense.
2. Prolific repeat felony offenders will not be sent to PRCS (county probation) if they were last released from prison on any felony (3N or otherwise) and post release supervision and committed their most recent felony with a period of time. I suggest 5 years.
"you can't blame the justice system that let him go on the shoplifting charge. Well, you can, but it doesn't make any sense."
Yes I can and it does make sense. That is how parole works. It tries to help someone re-enter society but ALSO remove them if they aren't ready yet. If a criminal with a long rap sheet gets picked up for shoplifting (a violation of their parole), they would likely get 180 days to a year, and probably add 1 year to their time on parole pre AB109. With no rap-sheet, maybe a few days to 30 days.
I can't help that you have you have no common sense on this issue but you appear to take each offense as if it's the ONLY offense when considering actions against the offender. *THAT* doesn't make any sense.
Dealing cocaine is quite different than a sometime recreational user. A whole different set of laws broken.
The dealer SHOULD go to prison. First time.
"Unfortunately, I think you read the situation wrong. Your problem is actually exacerbated by jailing non-violent drug offenders, three ways."
Unfortunately, I think *YOU* read the situation wrong. At this point it doesn't matter. Our monster already had a history including violence. The solution isn't to pretend felon's histories don't exist.
If the idea is to get them BEFORE they become violent and rehabilitate them then THAT is where you focus your efforts. You don't pretend they don't have a past and pat them on the head and say "be good".
"Just imagine a world where murderers got 20+ years and people who just possessed some drugs got 8 instead of vice-versa"
Just imagine a con with a history (including murder) after getting released and off probation gets arrested again -- for drugs and got 8 instead of hate. Just imagine them violating their probation (because *NOW* they are on PRCS rather than parole because we CANT look at their past), getting a flash incarceration of 4 or 5 days then getting back out on the streets and killing someone. It has happened. Parole helps people get back in to society and remove them if they aren't ready to get back. PRCS keeps people out of prison -- period. The problem is targeting.
"If it had been drug use or minor dealing, it would not have covered up any earlier violent felony."
You have no idea how AB109 works. It *FORCES* by rule of law felony parolees to county probation -- and prevents the consideration of any past felonies -- with very few exceptions, all revocation time is limited to 6 working days (maximum of 10 days including weekends). Under state supervision a criminals past is considered for all parole violations and all violations have a hearing to determine action -- with a max revocation time of 1 year and extending parole. Under county PRCS (AB109 county probation) only the last felony is considered on who is supervised by state or county. When he violated his "probation" (because AB109 forced him to county supervision with the new rules) our monster was only allowed a "flash incarceration" -- 6 days in the time-out chair in county jail. Under state supervision he would have likely been sent away for 90 days (the average at the time for parole violations) and he would have been behind bars the night he decided to rob my house and kidnap my daughter.
I have become quite knowledgeable on AB109 and the workings of the CA legislature. Trust me -- what you say is wrong.
Fun fact: Prop 57 (part of the AB109, Prop 47 Prop 57 trifecta), if you are serving state prison time for multiple felonies related to the same crime that included a violent felony and serving time consecutively, once you have served time for the "violent felony(ies)" you are now magically considered "non-violent" and will be dropped off in county PRCS (probation) once you complete the full sentence (remaining felonies). Example: Home invasion: robbery (violent felony - 6 years), B&E (non-volent -- 3 years) -- Serve about 4 years of the robbery (85% of the sentence + 1+1 in jail awaiting trial) then POOF. You are now a non-violent felon and when you finish your 2.5 years you will be going to county jail under PRCS and not parole. Madness.
I know what I'm talking about. The problem is that it's a complication issue and most people don't see the giant public safety hole because it requires understanding the convoluted language AB109 used to change CAs penal code -- plus CDCR (California Dept for Corrections and Rehabilitation) lies by misdirection whenever the issue comes up: "X wasn't released early -- X served their full time in state prison" rather than acknowledge they were RELEASED from state supervision to a much lower standard of COUNTY supervision.
We had a Police officer in Whittier killed by an AB109 probationer with a violent past. He had violated the terms of his parole 5 times before he killed his cousin, stole a car and had a shootout with cops that left one officer dead. Under state supervision this felon with a dangerous past would have been back in state prison after the first -- MAYBE the second violation with more than 90 days. Probably 1 year (max under probation) and probably had his probation term extended another 2 or 3 years.
Not in California. Hasn't been for more than a decade. And if they are in prison, I'm guessing there's a monster rap sheet in which case that's exactly where they need to be.
"If what you are saying is that he should have been in prison before the fact to prevent him from having hurt your daughter, that's a kind of pretzel logic I'm not going to even indulge."
You are deliberately being obtuse. He violated his "probation". Under state supervised parole he would have been behind bars for PAROLE violations pre AB109. He would not have been on the streets to commit the crime he committed against my daughter -- if it were allowed to be applied "segregation" would have protected my daughter. The only "pretzel logic" required is to come up with some reasoning where this isn't valid.
The fact that he was on the streets 6 days after violating the terms of his release is a travesty. The laws were changed by folks that apparently seem to think as you do about deterrence and retribution which have undercut our ability to yank out from society those who would harm the innocent and aren't ready to re-enter society.
I get it -- you don't like the system the way it was -- the way it is in most other states. Try to find a way to "fix" people BEFORE they are multiple repeat felons and before they are so "damaged", if that's what you believe is happening to them. The solution isn't to arbitrarily let people out of jail and hamstring our ability to easily put them back in when on post release supervision. THAT is not pretzel logic -- that is the common sense observation of naive legislation.
With regards to
"You said yourself that this man had a history of violent felonies and was, in the case of your family's ordeal, violent. Terrible story, I'm very sorry to hear, but your anecdote in no way relates to a statement about non-violent drug offenders."
You missed the part where I'm telling you that you need to look at what is considered a "non-violent drug offender". In our state, a "non-violent" anything is based *JUST* on their latest offense now. Yes, our monster had a history -- but new legislation made it impossible to consider that during post release supervision.
Also, most stories about "non-violent drug offenders" in prison statistics completely ignored the offenders history which helped pass the crazy legislation in my state.
"but your outrage is obviously clouding your logic."
Trust me -- it's not. There are four basic reasons society puts people in prison:
1. Retribution – they must pay their ‘debt to society’
2. Rehabilitation – assist them in re-entering society as a safe and productive member
3. Segregation – they are separated from society for its safety
4. Deterrence – The price to pay to society must try to deter the committing crimes against society
The table on which we rest our machine that attempts to keep society safe and provide a way “back” in to society for those who have hurt the innocent sits upon 4 legs represented by each one of the above reasons.
What we have done is hack off lengths of retribution, deterrence and segregation and lengthened rehabilitation to the point of absurdity. The table is now uneven, unstable and the machine meant to help keep the innocent safe can’t possibly work effectively. Each tilt and rock of that table spills out those who aren’t ready to re-enter society and encourages those who would otherwise be deterred to harm the innocent.
Parole has a purpose -- and it's to make sure the offender is READY to renter society -- and if not, make it EASY to put them back in prison Recent legislation in my state has hamstrung this important role at the expense of public safety.