Like other white collar crimes, credit card fraud involves the unauthorized use of another person’s credit card, whether one has possession of the card or not. Regardless how much was spent, being accused of this crime could have serious residual effects, including loss of gun ownership rights, loss of employment, and extended periods of incarceration.

Defending charges of fraud by credit card takes an in-depth understanding of finance laws, and the willingness to dig deep inside the prosecutor’s case to learn the backstory.

How California Law Defines Credit Card Fraud

California’s evolving Penal Code, specifically Chapter 5, sections 484-502.9 covers the crime of larceny in its many forms. Except for provisions regarding leased property, anyone who ‘carries away another’s property without paying for it’ commits larceny. Let’s concentrate on section 484g, which outlines credit card fraud.

An individual who uses, with the intention to defraud, another’s access card or card information without the cardholder’s express written consent has committed credit card fraud. The charge is escalated to grand theft if the amount exceeds $950 within a six-month period.

The same can be charged if another’s access card is copied or purposely damaged.

How Prosecutors Will Charge the Crime

When persons are simply in possession of stolen credit cards, a litigable offense has occurred even if they have not used the stolen instruments. Prosecutors defend the interests of both the state and victims, and will use whatever evidence is presented to hold persons accountable.

Some credit card offenses are called ‘wobbler’ offenses, meaning either misdemeanors or felonies may be charged. For example, possessing and using expired credit cards may be charged as misdemeanors, whereas actually charging thousands on someone’s credit account may land the perpetrator in prison.

How county prosecutors charge credit card fraud depends on specifics involving the case. Did an individual actually have written permission, but had that permission later recanted by the owner? Did an individual living in California possess someone’s credit card information from Arizona? Many factors determine final charges assessed to the defendant.

How Defense Attorneys Protect Clients

Persons who never intended to defraud or steal another’s credit card information for purposes of egregious spending may have defenses to their alleged crime.

For example, an individual who used expired credit cards to pay for items would lack requisite intent to be held accountable under California law. Same would hold true if mother sent her daughter to purchase groceries, but the cashier felt uneasy about daughter using the card and calls police. While the cashier would be correct in feeling suspicious, no criminal charges would apply since she was granted permission.

Other meritorious defenses may apply to credit card fraud cases, which your attorney can explain to you in further detail.

If Caught With Stolen Credit Cards

It is never suggested one takes another’s credit card. However, if you are caught red-handed, do not volunteer information to law enforcement as they have got enough to arrest you, anyway. Cooperate with their requests, and take note of every detail surrounding your arrest. Small technicalities, like not having the arrest Mirandized, may get charges dismissed.

California’s Penal Code leaves little room to argue. Credit card fraud is serious, as are the punishments that coincide with being found guilty.

Credit card fraud attorney James E. Blatt takes cases with one goal: complete dismissal. If you have been charged with any financial wrongdoing, contact his office immediately by phone, email or scheduling an in-person consultation. Learn about him through his notable cases.

Anyone proactive online since dial-up speeds were popular knows Net Neutrality could mean speeds are reduced for others or increased for persons willing to pay. Advertising expenses would reach almost unaffordable heights for some, while content you have enjoyed before may be impossible to find – if your ISP does not block access to it altogether.

One notion is that with stricter access comes fewer internet crimes. Is that belief ill-conceived, or could having ‘controlled movement’ when accessing various websites actually force people into old school criminal thinking – far easier to control with today’s technology?

Legislators Want Tougher Laws

An internet without rules is undoubtedly grim, and many have experienced this fact firsthand with numerous Facebook live killings, Craigslist murders and abductions, and various other internet crimes and scams. SB-822 specifically addresses broadband internet access service and provisions that would make California the toughest state on Net Neutrality. The bill would dissuade internet service providers (ISPs) from denying access, or speeding up or slowing down video content or websites, or forcing some websites to pay for ‘premium’ speeds.

During the same session, SB-460 inched closer to legislative action, an action lauded by committee members. It would forbid establishments that encroach upon net neutrality rules in SB-822 from being awarded public contracts.

Internet service providers strongly oppose both bills, citing an overreach into what regulations the federal government seek to replace.

Passing These Bills Could Thwart Crime

Most internet crimes, such as fraud and other schemes, are crimes of opportunity. Having the ability to freely access sites across the world provides just enough ammunition for folks who intend to harm one’s financial health. Bank and loan fraud manifests from one’s ability to easily acquire username and password information from black market sites, too.

Given the opportunity, persons with the wrong mindset will capitalize on anyone’s right to access sites with or without parental permission.

Take away one’s ability to access certain websites, and you will neutralize digitally conceived threats of violence and financial malfeasance. However, punishing select groups of law violators hurts the millions that want to access content from a myriad of legitimate mediums.

California politicians will engage in an epic battle to either prevent internet ‘gatekeepers’ from existing altogether, or may have to rethink their strategy to assuage the fears that telecom giants will lose customers in droves.

What Comes Next?

Both SB-822 and SB-460 will hear arguments on the legislative floor this week, with no finite timeline for final approval and enactment. Until something is passed, the current state of internet access will remain unchanged.

Even if something is passed expediently, do not expect internet crimes to curb immediately. Those truly intent on using the internet to perpetuate crimes will find their way around blocks or rules, although having regulation may greatly diminish the number of internet-based crimes committed annually.

Regardless what crimes are committed online, all defendants are innocent unless proof beyond doubt exists to the contrary.

James E. Blatt works all internet crimes cases with one goal – to get all charges dropped. If you have been charged with or are currently being investigated for internet crimes, contact the firm immediately.

 

Just when society finally figured out they will not receive a new car or lottery winnings after sending someone in Jamaica or Nigeria $1,500, 15 new international scams started bilking Americans out of millions. In fact, wire and mail fraud in countries you would never suspect were capable of committing such evil are leading this new wave of pay-me-or-else fraud.

The Justice Department concluded their recent roundup, which netted 21 arrests in California and seven additional states, and many of those arrested contracted the services of India-based call centers to perpetrate their crimes. An additional three dozen indictments were handed down in Ahmedabad, although that barely dented the expansive fraud network quickly multiplying across India.

International fraud is only effective when data lists are up-to-date. With the recent Equifax data breach that victimized 148 million Americans and counting, it is safe to assume someone’s data list got refreshed, then got sold several hundred times over.

Innocent People Suffer

While Homeland Security and similar law enforcement watchdogs are getting better at nailing international fraudsters, it does not come without an innocent person or two being set up by these fraud rings, many without their knowledge.

Phone number spoofing is one method overseas fraudsters use to maintain anonymity. Using cloud dialers and VoIP services, anyone with an email address and burner phone can own an American number. Even if that U.S. issued number is already issued to another person. With today’s technological advancements and evolving communication, people in India can phone an individual in California and make it look like the call originating from a friend’s cell phone.

Email addresses and Facebook profiles are another easy target that could implicate an innocent person without prior knowledge. If you have gotten scam messages from friends or emails that seem too authentic to be real, you will understand how sophisticated wire and mail fraud have gotten.

Perhaps the easiest way to put an innocent person unwittingly in harm’s path is the infamous cashier’s check scam. Individuals are sent real checks that look authentic, often from an elderly person’s account. After depositing and withdrawing funds to send back overseas, you will receive an unwelcome phone call from your bank, saying the check was fraudulent. It is too late at this point; clean funds have been wired overseas, and you are stuck either making the bank whole, or facing fraud on financial institution charges.

Prevention Through Education

International fraud quickly adjusts to new laws and stricter data security. It is probably not going away anytime soon, but that does not mean individuals are obligated to play along.

As you have heard before, if it is too good to be true, run. You did not win the lottery, a barrister did not leave you $500 million locked inside a Nigerian bank, the IRS is not going to arrest you for being $200 in arrears, and you do not owe for payday loans you did not take out.

Finally, if you have been wrongly implicated in any wire or mail fraud scheme, it is important to keep any evidence safe. Email communications, even if the source deleted their account, are helpful pieces of evidence that may exonerate you, and bust the international fraudster who pulled you into their ring.

 

Wire and mail fraud charges are serious. There are no mandatory minimum sentences, but even a single count could net you 30 years in prison. James E. Blatt will work tirelessly to get unwarranted charges dismissed, but you must phone his office immediately if you are under investigation or have been recently indicted.

The FBI’s well-publicized Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) provides an easy, clandestine method to report the many wrongdoings that occur in cyberspace. From scams, to child porn, to the sale of personal information, internet crimes are documented and then sent to IC3. They get looked over and passed on to local or federal law enforcement.

Problems arise when internet users can access the site, and fraudulently report alleged wrongdoing simply because they cannot stand someone. Some reports that should be sent to Interpol are routed to the IC3, too, creating logjams for months on crimes that should be legitimately investigated.

Even greater issues arise when an innocent, hard-working family breadwinner gets an unwelcome knock on the door, and is then ushered away by Federal agents for some internet-based crime that he or she did not commit.

Familiarizing Yourself with the Law

Most American households have some form of technology that has access to the internet like laptops, tablets, smartphones, or desktops. Legislation is constantly updating to protect children, women, data, families – you name it. Familiarity with laws governing digital mediums may help keep individuals safe, although some laws have obvious imperfections.

The National Registry of Exonerations, listing over 2,200 overturned convictions and dismissed cases, testifies to how imperfect due process can be. Many innocent defendants are wrongly adjudicated, taking years to clear their names. The registry does not account for thousands of internet crimes committed annually by individuals yet to be caught – crimes that got pinned on hard-working Americans without their consent.

Internet users should understand how laws, including net neutrality and acceptable use of data, may affect them later on. If one is unfamiliar with the law, or has questions regarding data found on computers they purchased secondhand, an internet crimes attorney consultation would be a wise investment.

Staying Protected and Reporting Suspicion

Email attachments and ‘unsavory’ websites can put incriminating information on your PC without your knowledge. Pop-ups, which are new browser windows that open automatically by script, and pop-under windows, which are not seen until you close your main browser window, may contain illegal or illicit information, pictures, and similar. Those windows have tracking cookies which stay on your computer indefinitely, making someone look guilty, even though that person just innocently opened an email attachment.

Chat rooms, as you probably know, are popular places to find oneself implicated for wrongdoing. That beautiful 39 year old professional sending you pictures is not always 39; she is sometimes 15 or 16 years old. After agreeing to meet with this individual, it is too late – especially if you cannot prove she disclosed her age as 39. Undercover police stings are usually how ‘purported’ child sex crimes are thwarted, although innocent persons legitimately thought they were meeting someone of age.

In cases where computers are purchased with illegal pictures on them, or one believes he or she is being set up, put down the mouse and phone your attorney immediately. This cannot be stressed enough. With the guidance of your attorney, you can then report pictures and illegal data to authorities, who can determine through time stamps and other technical information whether you have been victimized by chance, or may need to prepare for trial.

Internet crimes are serious offenses charged federally, at state level, or sometimes both. The most important component to winning your case is having experienced counsel. James E. Blatt will zealously defend those wrongly accused of internet-based crimes, but you must phone his office immediately so evidence can be preserved.

Signed by then-Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. in 2011, AB 109, known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment, was enacted to make sweeping changes to California’s overcrowded correctional facilities. By reducing costs and keeping non-violent, low-level offenders from returning to state lockup, California hoped that 33 prisons would drop their designed capacities to 137.5% by 2013. At the time of signing, prisons were operating at 179.5% of capacity.

As of August, 2018, many prisons remain at over 150% of designed capacity, with the overall average holding at 131.9%. Even worse, 4,200 guilty persons sentenced to California prisons are being housed in Mississippi and Arizona facilities, creating capacity problems with other state prison systems.

Seven years removed from Gov. Brown Jr.’s signature, California seems no better off today than before recidivism and prison overpopulation were placed in the hands of fed-up voters. This despite the landmark Brown vs. Plata case in which the government confirmed that inmates had their Eighth Amendment rights violated by virtue of overcrowding.

Rising Cost of Inmate Upkeep

Criminal defense attorneys often push hard for in-home confinement, probation, or both, which helps keep first-time and returning low-level offenders out of state confinement. If prosecutors feel jail time is merited, non-violent offenders should theoretically be allowed the option to serve county time. At least that is why AB 111 was written into law.

AB 111 was rolled out concurrently with AB 109, permitting county jails to tap into funding necessary to expand their jail system. If county jails expanded, lower level offenders could still receive CDC time, but be remanded to county for the duration of their executed sentences. By design, fewer petty criminals would be circulated through state prisons, which would lower capacity to respectable figures.

The CDC spends roughly $70,810 to house an inmate for one (1) year. Around $32,000 goes toward guard pay, with the remainder allocated to rehabilitation programs, inmate healthcare, administration, food and activities. In the wake of ICE roundups, California penal facilities are strained even further, although immigrants are suing due to harsh conditions in California, which may effectuate an increase in expenditures.

Under the current governor’s plan, $11 billion will be earmarked for rehabilitation and correction efforts. It is unclear under this new proposal if recidivism, capacity, and reassignment of low-level offenders serving time in high-security facilities are addressed. Counties will have access to these funds to expand programs and start work-release initiatives, although state prisons will consume a good portion for their own upkeep.

Forecasting Prisons of Tomorrow

Politicians and other figureheads of that ilk must find ways to address California’s prison overcrowding, especially if the CDC is expected to house immigrants rounded up by ICE. Some prisons and county facilities house inmates in shack-size rooms with triple bunk beds, creating unwarranted mental strain on inmates, not to mention provoking an unhealthy environment.

The Office of Research shows a 2017 CDC prison population of 131,260 with an estimated 2020 population of 121,224. Because of the projected impact of Proposition 57 and a decrease in court commitments, CDCR expects the prison population to reduce for the duration of the projections cycle released annually.

One area in which prisons are improving is their parole system. From August of 2017 to March of this year, roughly 12,000 inmates earned credit time toward their release, and California’s Parole Board is hearing nonviolent cases more frequently. This may help lessen the overcrowding issue, yet many believe an overhaul of the California criminal code could also relegate low-level offenders to more effective substance abuse and psychological programs.

The myriad of criminal procedure differences in California offer little clarity to someone facing serious jail time. Contact criminal defense attorney James E. Blatt, an expert in all facets of criminal law with only one goal: getting cases dismissed by mounting a comprehensive defense of alleged crimes.

 

See other related blogs:

Prohibitions Against Possession and Ownership

How To Legally Carry Your Legal Firearm in a Vehicle

 

People who operate vehicles under the influence of drugs or alcohol find themselves losing driving privileges, paying exorbitant fees, and living under court supervision. With miles of sprawling coastline, Californians love boating, but would rather avoid the penalties that come with BUI charges.

Similar to DUI charges, boating under the influence violates California Harbors & Navigation Code 655. Penalties are similar to what one receive for driving a car, truck, or other land-based conveyance while intoxicated, yet there are several differences worth noting.

No Motor? No BUI

The foundational assumption behind DUI is that an intoxicated person must be operating some motor-based vehicle – not necessarily at great rates of speed, but operating nonetheless. In moving the motorized transportation down the street, the risk of hurting others, including themselves, increases significantly due to perceived impairment.

BUI adopts the same principles, but with a twist. Watercraft that have outboard motors or engines similar to vehicles, or use any means to propel the vessel across water, fall under Code 655. Jet skis, speed boats, yachts, and similar craft reliant on motor power would be some examples.

However, dinghis, kayaks, canoes, and any nautical travel device that does not use motorized propulsion is exempt from prosecution under California’s BUI laws. Because rowing will not cause dangerous speeds to be reached, it makes sense that human-propelled watercraft would be exempt from BUI charges.

Boating Privileges are Not Necessarily Lost

Drivers convicted of DUI normally lose their licenses for at least 30 days, if not longer. This not only keeps habitual offenders off California highways, but it gives offenders an opportunity to appreciate their driving privileges.

In BUI incidents, even those resulting in serious injury, driving privileges are not necessarily stripped. Jail time and other penalties imposed under DUI law are still in play, but losing licensure is not guaranteed. Since California law regarding Boater’s Cards does not include renters and will not include all adults until 2025, boat operating privileges go untouched in BUI cases.

Proving BUI is Much Trickier

Illegal search and seizure laws in California prevent the Coast Guard and other law enforcement professionals from entering your vessel without probable cause. Since traveling straight on water is rarely achieved by even the soberest boater, how does one determine if boat operators are drunk or high?

Apart from slamming into other boats, yelling obscenities, and causing problems while operating watercraft, the answer is sheer luck.

Boaters can always turn their craft off and quickly put oars in water, which would call to question whether the boat’s motor was running when maritime police pulled over the boat. Since cameras are nonexistent except in marinas, on properties bordering water and houseboats, raising reasonable doubt is much simpler for any BUI defense attorney to accomplish.

While boaters are strongly encouraged to have sober operators on hand should excessive drinking transpire, many times boaters brave the Pacific alone. Always know your limits, have life-saving rafts and other similar equipment nearby, and remember that BUI is treated as serious as DUI should prosecution secure a guilty verdict.

Accused of boating under the influence, and believe you are innocent? The Law Offices of James E. Blatt handle BUI cases with one goal – getting the charges dismissed. Contact an experienced law firm dedicated to preserving your innocence in boating-related arrests.

 

  

 

In an effort to address jail overcrowding across California, a bevy of new laws have been passed since 2011. AB 1810, although designed to address Medi-Cal coverage and healthcare licensing fees, contained an important component which may help divert mentally ill defendants into more effective care programs. Mental Health Diversion for All Criminals, as the name implies, allows criminals suffering from psychological disorders to enter pretrial diversion at the judge’s discretion. Domestic violence, theft, and other crimes may qualify with the help of a competent criminal defense attorney.

This component of AB 1810 has no author, and is drawing the ire of citizens and law personnel who believe criminals will be empowered to abuse this new legislation by claiming mental illness when none exists. Prosecutors, for one, want this law scaled back to avoid granting undeserved privileges to criminal acts that normally come with extended sentences.

With an overabundance of low-level criminals remanded to CDC, this law could provide population control and access to programs mentally ill defendants need to remove themselves from California’s growing recidivism statistic.

 

Treatment Before Due Process

Counties are already given discretion by the state to provide diversion programs to offenders with PTSD, various brain injuries and other mental disorders. Military service personnel often get approved for diversion before other criminals who need similar help.

Under Gov. Brown’s recently signed law, offenders with any degree of mental illness may qualify for pretrial diversion without respect to crimes they are accused of committing. By sending persons to treatment prior to entering the criminal process, California’s hospitals – many with extended waiting lists – will see fewer criminals deemed incompetent to stand trial. Pedophilia and antisocial personality disorders are exempt from this law.

Offenders and defendants who successfully complete their assigned program may qualify to have charges dismissed, provided the judge accepts that their treatment was effective enough to prevent re-offending. Gov. Brown has earmarked $115 over three years to push 850 people through community-based programs regardless of crime.

 

This is where prosecutors want the line drawn.

 

Prosecutors Want Safeguards to Prevent Abuse

According to prosecutors who oppose this addition to criminal law, limitations are needed on who this law benefits. Nonviolent misdemeanors and low-level felonies should be the cutoff for diversion, especially when repeat offenders and those who commit violent felonies are dangers to public safety.

One argument is that the 88-page bill was passed in one legislative session, which denied the opportunity for bipartisan opposition. Another is the ease of access given to defense attorneys who can simply ask judges to send their defendants to diversion. Courts have sole discretionary power to deny or object motions for admission into these programs.

Some find that Propositions 47 and 57, along with AB 1810, allow truly guilty persons to cry afoul simply to avoid facing adjudication for crimes committed.

Current negotiations are progressing, although the exact time frame for county prosecutors to see proposed changes enacted, if at all, is unknown.

If you have committed theft, murder, or other crimes and suffer mental disorders, contact James E. Blatt to discuss your legal options. With the ultimate goal of case dismissal, Mr. Blatt has worked similar cases where psychological issues played an instrumental role during the commission of various misdemeanor and felony offenses.

See other related blogs:

Proposition 64 May be Significant in Curbing Drug Crimes

Assembly Bill 109 and Overcrowded Prisons Seven Years Later

 

Although California’s landmark cannabis reform does not include sales of marijuana and similar offenses, felony arrests related to marijuana possession and use are down 74%. Proposition 64 is having a resounding effect on cannabis-related drug crimes, in fact, much like Colorado when it legalized recreational use. Between 2016 and 2017 alone, defendants facing charges and fines related to marijuana fell by 8,000.

Another aspect of Proposition 64 is what remedies are available for those with past or present low-level marijuana offenses. Persons may petition courts to expunge records, request cases get dropped, or even get sentences or felonies reduced to misdemeanor-level punishments.

There is little doubt that arrests are falling fast. Far more serious drug issues related to opioids, cocaine, heroin and spice still remain, which may subside if California’s recreational marijuana use continues pulling tax revenue.

California is Spearheading Marijuana Criminal Reform

Millions of recreational marijuana users scattered across eight states and D.C. have been able to maintain normal lives thanks to legalization, with many able to clear records and again enjoy constitutional liberties such as gun ownership. Across America, marijuana convictions mean career options are slim and social services like SNAP may be unavailable, leading to a lower quality of life. California saw the writing on the wall, and made Prop 64 both a marijuana criminal reform tool and a quid pro quo for marijuana users unfazed by taxation of cannabis.

Proposition 64 is by no means flawless. Outreach is necessary to locate persons unaware that their marijuana conviction may be expungeable, requiring more resources and research. Yet as each day passes, another round of petitions to expunge or dismiss cases is examined and approved. Other states are following this blueprint, but it is California’s ingenuity that is having such a resounding effect on criminal reform.

The initiative to decriminalize and expunge marijuana offenses was an offshoot of Proposition 47, a 2014 law that allowed non-violent drug and other felonies to be reduced or dismissed based on their own merits, along with the criminal history of the defendant seeking dismissal.

How Proposition 64 can Fight Harder Drugs Statewide

While thousands of Californians wait patiently to have records cleared, millions of Americans lack such opportunity. Will other states that permit recreational use follow suit? Politicians are finally coming around on the issue, but reform could be years away.

One area in which California stands to improve, much like other states, is how they are fighting the deadly drug crisis. Since 2000, opioid-related overdoses have killed more Americans than soldiers in WWII.

An insightful report suggests that legal marijuana alone could decimate the amount of addictive prescription drugs dished out daily. Doctors are incentivized to prescribe pain medication, leading to a growing number of patients relying solely on oxycodone, hydrocodone, and similar drugs in high doses. Once addicted, drugs like suboxone are prescribed to fight addiction, resulting in more problems than solutions.

States like Colorado and Oregon are seeing results from this theory, reducing the number of opioid prescriptions by 9% and 10%, respectively. For California to fight this deadly drug battle, a statewide ban on habit-forming medication may be necessary, or at least tighter reform on how prescriptions are passed out.

As a standalone solution, Proposition 64 could be the catalyst California needed to fight harder drugs and the crimes that come with usage. Along with reforming overcrowded prisons and introducing better rehabilitation programs, the Golden State may become the model state for drug reform.

Many still are not sure what is illegal under the recreational pot law, known as Proposition 64 or The Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016. If you have been accused of marijuana sales or other drug crimes in Los Angeles and surrounding cities, contact the Law Office of James E. Blatt.

 

See other related blogs:

Legal Pot: Not So Fast – What Can & Cannot Do

Marijuana Limitations

 

Signed by then-Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. in 2011, AB 109, known as the 2011 Public Safety Realignment, was enacted to make sweeping changes to California’s overcrowded correctional facilities. By reducing costs and keeping non-violent, low-level offenders from returning to state lockup, California hoped that 33 prisons would drop their designed capacities to 137.5% by 2013. At the time of signing, prisons were operating at 179.5% of capacity.

As of August, 2018, many prisons remain at over 150% of designed capacity, with the overall average holding at 131.9%. Even worse, 4,200 guilty persons sentenced to California prisons are being housed in Mississippi and Arizona facilities, creating capacity problems with other state prison systems.

Seven years removed from Gov. Brown Jr.’s signature, California seems no better off today than before recidivism and prison overpopulation were placed in the hands of fed-up voters. This despite the landmark Brown vs. Plata case in which the government confirmed that inmates had their Eighth Amendment rights violated by virtue of overcrowding.

Rising Cost of Inmate Upkeep

Criminal defense attorneys often push hard for in-home confinement, probation, or both, which helps keep first-time and returning low-level offenders out of state confinement. If prosecutors feel jail time is merited, non-violent offenders should theoretically be allowed the option to serve county time. At least that is why AB 111 was written into law.

AB 111 was rolled out concurrently with AB 109, permitting county jails to tap into funding necessary to expand their jail system. If county jails expanded, lower level offenders could still receive CDC time, but be remanded to county for the duration of their executed sentences. By design, fewer petty criminals would be circulated through state prisons, which would lower capacity to respectable figures.

The CDC spends roughly $70,810 to house an inmate for one (1) year. Around $32,000 goes toward guard pay, with the remainder allocated to rehabilitation programs, inmate healthcare, administration, food and activities. In the wake of ICE roundups, California penal facilities are strained even further, although immigrants are suing due to harsh conditions in California, which may effectuate an increase in expenditures.

Under the current governor’s plan, $11 billion will be earmarked for rehabilitation and correction efforts. It is unclear under this new proposal if recidivism, capacity, and reassignment of low-level offenders serving time in high-security facilities are addressed. Counties will have access to these funds to expand programs and start work-release initiatives, although state prisons will consume a good portion for their own upkeep.

Forecasting Prisons of Tomorrow

Politicians and other figureheads of that ilk must find ways to address California’s prison overcrowding, especially if the CDC is expected to house immigrants rounded up by ICE. Some prisons and county facilities house inmates in shack-size rooms with triple bunk beds, creating unwarranted mental strain on inmates, not to mention provoking an unhealthy environment.

The Office of Research shows a 2017 CDC prison population of 131,260 with an estimated 2020 population of 121,224. Because of the projected impact of Proposition 57 and a decrease in court commitments, CDCR expects the prison population to reduce for the duration of the projections cycle released annually.

One area in which prisons are improving is their parole system. From August of 2017 to March of this year, roughly 12,000 inmates earned credit time toward their release, and California’s Parole Board is hearing nonviolent cases more frequently. This may help lessen the overcrowding issue, yet many believe an overhaul of the California criminal code could also relegate low-level offenders to more effective substance abuse and psychological programs.

The myriad of criminal procedure differences in California offer little clarity to someone facing serious jail time. Contact criminal defense attorney James E. Blatt, an expert in all facets of criminal law with only one goal: getting cases dismissed by mounting a comprehensive defense of alleged crimes.

 

See other related blogs:

Prohibitions Against Possession and Ownership

How To Legally Carry Your Legal Firearm in a Vehicle