DOCSLIB.ORG

California Correctional System's Policies Regarding Parole Release and Mentally Disordered Offenders Assembly Committee on Public Safety

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
California Correctional System's Policies Regarding Parole Release and Mentally Disordered Offenders Assembly Committee on Public Safety Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Assembly California Documents 1987 California Correctional System's Policies Regarding Parole Release and Mentally Disordered Offenders Assembly Committee on Public Safety Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Assembly Committee on Public Safety, "California Correctional System's Policies Regarding Parole Release and Mentally Disordered Offenders" (1987). California Assembly. Paper 282. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_assembly/282 This Committee Report is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Assembly by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KFC - 22 .L500 P871 1987 no .1 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM 1 S POLICIES REGARDING PAROLE RELEASE AND MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LARRY STIRLING, Chair Robert Campbell Burt Margolin Terry B. Friedman Mike Roos Tim Leslie Paul E. Zeltner DeeOee D1 Adamo, Counsel Laura Hankins, Consultant LARRY STIRLING CHIEF COUNSEl CHAiR SUSAN SHAW GOODMAN COUNSEL LISA BURROUGHS WAGNER 1Il.egislaturt DEEDEE D'ADAMO MELISSA K. CONSULTANT PAUL E. ZELTNER LAURA HANKINS COMMITTEE SECRETARY DARLENE E. BLUE 11 00 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 445-3268 testimony presented to the Committee on ng on Parole Release Policies Disordered Offenders." Also incl are ons regarding these issues. regarding the recent release of leton, and regarding several rel ease and post-release programming ly disordered offenders. Their Californians to collectively resolved in the immediate of California. i .................... i I. Q0$060064<000$41$$0$0$0················· i1 II 1 •••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 ••••••••••• <II> ••••••••••••• 5 VI I. II. OFFENDERS •• NG •••••••••••••••••••••• * ••• X NG • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I. 87 •••••••••••••••e••••••••••*••••• $ • • • • • • • • • • ••••• $ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.. .. .......... • • 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • $ ••••••• 6 • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••• • i i C) X 1) B) • of success rate success rate C) 1) 2) • • 7) programs. es inmates of ting (Penal 8) focus of oyment. job 9) prior ough 150 10) 1) th 5) 6) b) 7) • 8) • • • • ous i in acts of or a 5) ease by BPT ide lines ( B) 1) 2) r 10% of 3) a) ons e which 4) a) • 5) of b) nder d) e 3) 4) a 5) 6) a) b) 6 D) and, objectives of parole sian are to severity of incidents of parolee nal behavior r (parolee) community adjustment. 11 l 1 these makes the following recommendations: 1) CDC is encouraged to expand the Sponsors a continuation of the visits by once eased. The success rate statistics M-2 ion V-B) clearly indicate that the success rate of were matched up with an M-2 sponsor was much hi during 1ately following their incarceration. ing the inue the visits during the period e would ees th additional resources to assi ntegration community 1if e. 2) For 15 years, the State Bar operated "Volunteers in Parole," a judges with CYA parolees. The their parolees, providing positive i r efforts to become productive citizens. , Statewide Coordinator-Director to a recidivism study has not been , is to the quality of the volunteer/parolee visits, cipate in the program have greater success who did not participate in the program. establish a Volunteers in si lar , and the Legislature is encouraged ing 3) • Nunn recommends that participation ld be required as a condition of e substance abuse caused or contri parolee's crime. 4) The Period Immediately Following Incarceration. Mr. recommended that all parolees be on intensive surveillance ng the first 30 days of parole. Accardi iately following release is the most ion into society. During this ee adjustments regarding personal housing. 5) CDC have with fy -17- Before to know each encouraged appropri i informati 6) Employment. a) b) c) • d) Addi a vi re a period in determine ng state iring the ng program to 7) recommends that CDC's parole division other state es, such as the Department ing and of Social ces, the on, on 1 the Interagency would between parolees es ch parolees. VII. PAROLE PLACEMENT A) 1) on 3003 (See Appendix #8) the inmates placed on parole shall be returned to they were committed. CDC or BPT may release a other than the county of commitment if such a best interests of the public of the may be based the following the life or of a victim, the parolee, a person • • would reduce the chance that inmate 1 s parole completed. of a work t educati or vocational residence of inmate. exi ly with whom the inmate has ntained strong ties support would increase the chance that the inmate's parole wou successfully completed. outpatient mental health treatment programs. de to place a parolee in a county other than the 9 they mu place ir reasons in writing. 1) . t, e di ision imately 210 days prior to release in inmate upon release. Placement unless exist ich other the county of 2) releasing Singleton, CDC announced Costa County. According to Mr. on came to s decision because it did not in Stanislaus County (the county where the crime in the best interests of the public since Singleton di who prosecuted on the Attorney General Morris Lenk, county of tment) would s nee Singl ed in San -20- Diego by mere 11 happenstance" as the result of a Stanislaus County. CDC also made attempts to place Singleton out Florida or Nevada. Both states, however. Singleton in their states. CDC finally sel the county of Singleton's placement since it was legal residence. 3) Litigation Regarding Singleton's Placement. filed by counties which sought to restrain in their communities: a) Contra Costa County. 1 CDC and San Diego County, seeking Singleton in Contra Costa County. receiving a temporary restraini mandate in appellate court. b) San Francisco County. In ls CDC met officials regardi the ible placement City/County of San sco responded wi restrain CDC from plac1 Singleton successful in receiving a temporary sought a writ of mandate in appellate c) San Mateo County. 1 30, CDC Singleton in San Mateo. San Mateo of Singleton in i on, d) i) placement commi requires pl includes of venue, authorized county of in the the parolee es venue would have the of venue 11) ) • 4) C) Findings 1) D) 1) pass agencies i authori to cons parolee in 2) -- see Appendix 19). According to Director Rowland, CDC complies this requirement by sending a computer printout to each law enforcement jurisdiction that requests such notice showing monthly parolee movement into and out of their area. The Legislature is encouraged to amend these provisions to require to provide such information to law enforcement as a matter of course. Additionally, CDC should be required to provide law enforcement wi additional information, such as the place of the parolee's resi and the name of the parolee•s parole agent. 3) Chan e of Venue Clarification. The Legislature is encouraged to AB 629 Stirling see Appendix #10) which clarifies that 11 county commitment" for purposes of release means the county where the me was committed. This bill would have the impact of overturning a portion of the McCarthy decision (see VII-B) which interpreted 11 of commitment" to mean the county from where the defendant was committed. According to Assemblyman Stirling, the policy behind AB 629 is to encourage, rather than discourage, counties from accepti of venue cases. -23- v A) 1) 1) 2684). 2) • persons require Rehabili on Institutions 3) zes the of persons • These is amenable 4) i) a ii i 111 an which i was or she used v) disorder 90 a) tment not demonstrated b) Treatment. The parolee can challenge BPT's decision in superior court at which time the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The treatment is inpatient unless the parolee can be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis. c) Extended Commitment. The district attorney may file a petition with the court to extend involuntary treatment for up to one year beyond the period of parole. Extended commitment is authorized if a jury makes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the above criteria is met. There is no limit on the number of times a court can recommit a patient. B) Summary of Testimony 1) Mental Health Evaluations. a) CDC Procedure. According to Dr. Nadim Khoury, Chief of CDC's Medical Services Division, since the MOO law became effective on July 1, 1986, CDC performs mental health evaluations of each inmate within 6-8 months of their commitment to CDC. Dr. Khoury testified that CDC performs in-depth mental health evaluations upon inmates who meet any of the following criteria: i) The inmate admits to a history of prior mental health treatment. ii) A psychiatrist who performs the initial evaluation suspects that the inmate has a mental illness. iii) The inmate has a history of commitments based upon incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. iv) The person who performs the educational evaluation or a correctional counselor suspects that the inmate has a mental illness. b) DMH Procedure. According to Rick Mandella, Chief the Forensic Services Branch with the Department of Mental Health, OMH all inmates who have been referred to DMH facilities pursuant to the MOO law or the law which authorizes transfer from CDC to DMH. DMH's evaluation consists of the following: i) A review of the inmate's record while in prison. ii) A review of the inmate's plea and sentencing record. iii) A review of information from CDC's clinical and custodi staff. -25- iv) A mental on psychologi v) A d1 ic 2) Implementing the MOO Law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Health and Criminal Justice Approaches to Homicide Research
    The Relationship Between Non-Lethal and Lethal Violence Proceedings of the 2002 Meeting of the Homicide Research Working Group St. Louis, Missouri May 30 - June 2 Editors M. Dwayne Smith University of South Florida Paul H. Blackman National Rifle Association ii PREFACE In a number of ways, 2002 and 2003 represent transition years for the Homicide Research Working Group (HRWG), its annual meetings, variously referred to as symposia or workshops, and the Proceedings of those meetings. One major change, both in terms of the meetings and the Proceedings, deals with sponsorship. Traditionally, the HRWG’s annual meetings have been hosted by some institution, be it a university or group affiliated with a university, or a government agency devoted at least in part to the collection and/or analysis of data regarding homicides or other facets of homicide research. Prior to 2002, this generally meant at least two things: that the meetings would take place at the facilities of the hosting agency, and that attendees would be treated to something beyond ordinary panels related to the host agency. For example, in recent years, the FBI Academy provided an afternoon with tours of some of its facilities, Loyola University in Chicago arranged a field trip to the Medical Examiners’ office and a major hospital trauma center, and the University of Central Florida arranged a demonstration of forensic anthropology. More recently, however, the host has merely arranged for hotel facilities and meeting centers, and some of the panels, particularly the opening session. This has had the benefit of adding variety to the persons attracted to present at our symposia, but at the risk that they are unfamiliar with our traditional approach to preparing papers for the meetings and the Proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • 108916NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • ., CAlKli:'()RNKA C()RTI~IECTKOl\JAt SYSTEM'S POlITCH1E§ RIE:C;ARTI)KNG PAROLE RJE1L1EASE • AND l\1E Nl'A ttY D rrS()R[) JERE D () IF flE NIJ£ RS ., • • • ! ~!, ' •. I' ) \ 1) .\,' '/ ) \' ' I 1\1. " ll'\'" l,:...; .• I) . ( ..L\ I!'.,.!. \ ' (,.~, ,I. ' I I j l , :: • " . I • I • • • • • • • a)'i ilirt! i kl,itj~j)ns ficp • ":tcl tL·1 CdP'll to ~ 9 h1m, 94 ?tv/. !) S~rr~rn~nto, tA Y4249-noo1 • • t.. • 108'Qlh CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM'S POLICIES REGARDING I PAROLE RELEASE I~ AND MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS • • • • ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY • FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I • LARRY STIRLING, Chair Robert Campbell Burt Margolin • Terry B. Friedman' Mike Roos Tim Lesl ie Paul E. Zeltner DeeDee D'Adamo 9 Counsel Laura Hankinss Consultant LARRY STIRLING CIIiEF COUNSEL CHAIR i\slltwbln SUSAN SHAW GOODMAN ROBERT CAMPBELL COUNSEL l'E~1RY B. FRIEDMAN LISA BURROUGHS WAGNER TIM LESLIE QtaUfnrnta 1JJegt111ature DEEDEE D'ADAMO BURr MARGOLIN MELISSA K NAPPAN MII<EROOS PAUL E ZELTNER CONSULTANT LAURA HANKINS COMMITTEE SECRETARY • DARLENE E. BLUE • 1100 ,) STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 445,3268 • August 5~ 1987 Honorab 1e kJi 11 i e L. Brown 9 Jr. Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol~ Room 219 • Sacramento~ California 95814 Dear Mr. Speaker~ The attached documents represent the testimony presented to the Committee on Public Safety at the "Informational Hearing on Parole Release Policies and • Evaluations and Treatment of Mentally Disordered Offenders." Also included are the committee's findings and recommendations regarding these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • William Newsom POLITICS, LAW, and HUMAN RIGHTS
    Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California William Newsom POLITICS, LAW, AND HUMAN RIGHTS Interviews conducted by Martin Meeker in 2008-2009 Copyright © 2009 by The Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and William Newsom, dated August 7, 2009, and Barbara Newsom, dated September 22, 2009 (by her executor), and Brennan Newsom, dated November 12, 2009. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • How Empirical Studies Can Affect Positively the Politics of the Death Penalty Ronald J
    Cornell Law Review Volume 83 Article 1 Issue 6 September 1998 How Empirical Studies Can Affect Positively the Politics of the Death Penalty Ronald J. Tabak Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ronald J. Tabak, How Empirical Studies Can Affect Positively the Politics of the Death Penalty, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 1431 (1998) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol83/iss6/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW EMPIRICAL STUDIES CAN AFFECT POSITIVELY THE POLITICS OF THE DEATH PENALTY RonaldJ Tabakj INTRODUCTION Empirical studies concerning the death penalty can play an im- portant role in public discourse on capital punishment and can affect our political system's handling of this issue. But constructive dis- course will occur only if opponents of the death penalty educate themselves about what the empirical studies show. Abolitionists then can include these studies in their arsenal along with other arguments against state-implemented killings. The discussion below exemplifies how death penalty opponents can use empirical studies to make effec- tive arguments against capital punishment. I DETERRENCE Death penalty proponents persistently make the argument that capital punishment deters killing. This argument takes a variety of forms, none of which withstands analysis. A. Reputable Studies Fail to Find a Deterrent Effect Scholars conducting valid studies on the subject of deterrence have failed to find any deterrent effect from capital punishment.' This proposition holds true whether one looks just at the states with the death penalty or whether one compares death penalty states with non-death penalty states.
    [Show full text]
  • Castrating Pedophiles Convicted of Sex Offenses Against Children: New Treatment Or Old Punishment
    SMU Law Review Volume 51 Issue 2 Article 4 1998 Castrating Pedophiles Convicted of Sex Offenses against Children: New Treatment or Old Punishment William Winslade T. Howard Stone Michele Smith-Bell Denise M. Webb Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation William Winslade et al., Castrating Pedophiles Convicted of Sex Offenses against Children: New Treatment or Old Punishment, 51 SMU L. REV. 349 (1998) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol51/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. CASTRATING PEDOPHILES CONVICTED OF SEX OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN: NEW TREATMENT OR OLD PUNISHMENT? William Winslade* T. Howard Stone** Michele Smith-Bell*** Denise M. Webb**** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 351 II. PEDOPHILIA AND ITS TREATMENT ................. 354 A. THE NATURE OF PEDOPHILIA ......................... 355 1. Definition of Pedophilia ........................... 355 2. Sex Offenses and Sex Offenders ................... 357 a. Incidence of Sex Offenses ..................... 357 b. Characteristics of and Distinctions Among Sex O ffenders ..................................... 360 B. ETIOLOGY AND TREATMENT .......................... 364 1. Etiology and Course of Pedophilia................. 364 2. Treatment ......................................... 365 a. Biological of Pharmacological Treatment ...... 366 * Program Director, Program on Legal & Ethical Issues in Correctional Health, In- stitute for the Medical Humanities, James Wade Rockwell Professor of Philosophy of Medicine, Professor of Preventive Medicine & Community Health, and Professor of Psy- chiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; Dis- tinguished Visiting Professor of Law, University of Houston Health Law & Policy Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Opting Compassion: the Federal Victim's Rights Amendment
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1998 Co-Opting Compassion: The Federal Victim's Rights Amendment Lynne N. Henderson Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Henderson, Lynne N., "Co-Opting Compassion: The Federal Victim's Rights Amendment" (1998). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 1958. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1958 This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTARY CO-OPTING COMPASSION: THE FEDERAL VICTIM'S RIGHTS AMENDMENT LYNNE HENDERSON* For several years, Congress has considered a number of proposals to recommend a Victim's Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In 1996, Senators Feinstein' and Kyl2 and Representative Hyde3 introduced proposed amendments to the Constitution that would provide certain, variously defined rights to crime victims During Na- tional Crime Victim's Week in 1997,' the Senate Committee on the Judici- ary held hearings on the most current proposal, Senate Judiciary Resolu- tion 6.6 The hearings were then heavily attended by members of victim advocacy groups supporting its adoption.7 Televised by Cable News Net- work, the hearings included testimony from numerous groups and indi- * Professor of Law, Indiana University-Bloomington School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice in America Fifth Edition
    cja_teachers_cover:Layout 1 8/28/2012 1:55 PM Page 1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA FIFTH EDITION TEACHER’S GUIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA FIFTH EDITION TEACHER’S GUIDE Developed by Bill Hayes Marshall Croddy 601 South Kingsley Drive Los Angeles, California 90005 (213) 487- 5590 www.crf-usa.org T. Warren Jackson, Chair Marshall P. Horowitz, Chair, Publications Committee Jonathan Estrin, President Marshall Croddy, Vice President Board Reviewers Marshall P. Horowitz, Lisa Rockwell, Patrick Rogan, K. Eugene Shutler, Douglas Thompson, Lois Thompson Developed by Bill Hayes and Marshall Croddy Editor Bill Hayes Contributing Writers Bill Hayes, Sophia Kahn, Adam Leeman, Caitlin W. Meyd, Shruti Modi, Anjelica Grace Sarmiento, Marianna Muratova Design and Production Andrew Costly The development of these materials was financially assisted through the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Grant #85-JS-CX-0007. ISBN: 978-1886253-46-7 © 2012, 2005, 2000, 1998, 1983, 1993, 1991, Constitutional Rights Foundation. All rights reserved. Published in 2012. First Printing. First edition published 1983; second edition, 1991 and 1993; third edition, 2000, fourth edition, 2005. Printed in the United States of America CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA TEACHER’S GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview Chapter 20: Children and the Constitution....66 Section 1: The Text Chapter 21: Juvenile Corrections ................69 Goals ............................................................4 Unit 6: Solutions Standards Addressed .....................................5
    [Show full text]
  • A Cost and Lack-Of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty
    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 23 Number 1 Symposium—The Death Penalty Article 5 Approaches the 1990s: Where Are We Now 11-1-1989 The Execution of Injustice: A Cost and Lack-of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty Ronald J. Tabak J. Mark Lane Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ronald J. Tabak & J. M. Lane, The Execution of Injustice: A Cost and Lack-of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty, 23 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 59 (1989). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol23/iss1/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EXECUTION OF INJUSTICE: A COST AND LACK-OF-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE DEATH PENALTY* Ronald . Tabak** and J. Mark Lane*** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 61 II. THE DEATH PENALTY IS STILL ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ............................................ 62 A. The CapitalPunishment System Does Not Rationally Select Those Who Shall Die ......................... 62 B. Overzealous ProsecutorsImproperly Seek and Obtain Death Sentences ..................................... 64 C Ineffective Defense Renders Capital Trials Unfair ..... 69 D. The Juq Selection Process Fails to Ensure Unbiased Juries .............................................. 75 E. Jurors in Capital Cases Are Often Misled, Misinstructed, or Incompletely Informed ............. 77 F. The Lack of Real ProportionalityReview Means that * This Article was prepared for New York Lawyers Against the Death Penalty, an organization of over 1,000 members of the New York Bar, as a memorandum in opposition to legislation which would restore the death penalty in New York State.
    [Show full text]
  • ~1:R111,1M~Il1 ·
    ~NIVERSIT'( OF HAWAII LIBRARY arianas %riet~~ Micronesia's Leading Newspaper Since 1972 '&l C\\1S sought for By Rick.Alberto and A House resolution will be Garapan, was presided over by report stated, among other things, Rep. Pete Reyes, member of Mar-Vic C. Munar drafted to this effect by the House the committee chair, Rep. Maria that the school's water tanks had the committee, told the meeting Variety News Staff committee on education and wel­ Peters. become breeding grounds for vec­ he had earlier learned from Gov­ CONCERNED legislators yester­ fare, which met with education Saipan's lone public high tor and that many of its facilities ernorTenorio about the availabil­ day said they will ask Gov. Froilan officials headed by Commissioner school was reported the other day were badly in need of repair. ity of$ I millionwhichheplansto C. Tenorio to allocate $1 million William Torres and Board ofEdu­ as facing suspension of opera­ It said some windows were bro­ allocate for the MVB to avert a to address the emergency needs cation chair Don A. Farrell and tions after being found to be in ken and some ceilings falling off. deficit. of the Marianas High School, discussed the MHS situation and bad physical shape and in an un­ The MHS had been given 20 Later, in an interview, Reyes which faces temporary closure Jack of classrooms in public el­ sanitary condition. working days from receipt of the told the Variety: "I'm sure that unless sanitary requirements are ementary schools. The meeting, Sanitary Inspector Felix Saki sat sanitary inspection report to com­ there is that money.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposition 115: the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, 22 Pac
    McGeorge Law Review Volume 22 | Issue 3 Article 9 1-1-1991 Proposition 115: The rC ime Victims Justice Reform Act Deborah Glynn University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah Glynn, Proposition 115: The Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, 22 Pac. L. J. 1010 (1991). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol22/iss3/9 This Greensheet is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review of Selected 1990 California Legislation--Addendum Proposition 115: The Crime Victims Justice Reform Act Criminal Procedure--Crime Victims Justice Reform Act California Constitution, Art. I, §§ 14.1, 29, 30 (new); Penal Code §§ 1102.5, 1102.7, 1430 (repealed); §§ 190.41, 206, 206.1, 871.6, 964.1, 987.05, 1049.5, 1050.1, 1054, 1054.1, 1054.2, 1054.3, 1054.4, 1054.5, 1054.6, 1054.7, 1385.1, 1511 (new); §§ 189, 190.2, 190.5, 859, 866, 872 (amended); Civil Procedure Code § 223 (repealed and new); § 223.5 (repealed); Evidence Code § 1203.1 (new). Proposition 115* Support: Governor Pete Wilson; California District Attorneys Association; California Peace Officer's Association; California Police Chief's Association; California Correctional Peace Officers Association; Women Prosecutors of California; William Plested Im, M.D., President, California Medical Association. Opposition: Robin Schneider, Executive Director, California Abortion Rights Action League; Shirley Hufstedler; W.
    [Show full text]
  • FLORIDA PRISON LEGAL Ers Ectives VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1 ISSN# 1091-8094 JANIFEB 2002
    / FLORIDA PRISON LEGAL ers ectives VOLUME 8, ISSUE 1 ISSN# 1091-8094 JANIFEB 2002 In this two-part treatise, we For those individuals who have PARENTSIN hope that many of the questions and a supportive and committed spouse, concerns that incarcerated parents your fears and concerns about the PRISON have about custody oftheir children, family unity ar~ not as severe as those -PARTONE­ both during and after the time they who do not have a strong relationship. by Linda Hanson are in prison will be addressed. The To keep your family intact, exposition that follows is not communication is a must. This can be f.YOU are a parent in prison you intended to replace your 'lawyer. If accomplished through regular visits, probably have many questions you have a lawyer, use him or her.. phone calls, and letters.· While visits. I and concerns about your Ask questions, give information, and and phone calls can be a bUrden to your children and about your I legal tell him what you want for your spouse (since she or he may have rights as a parent. Your children family. depended on your income), greeting may be with a spouse. relative, cards and letters provide the most group, home or foster care. If your I. FRACTURED FAMILY economical way to communicate with children are under the supervision Incarceration draimitically alters your children. It will also foster the of the Department ofChildren and domestic relationships. To be development of reading and writing Family Services. you may h~ve imprisoned is to be cutoff skills for your children.
    [Show full text]
  • Ifflanrbpatpr Mpralb
    1 ^soHiof ■ £ ... ■ , iiiinii Ti i.i. iT 1.11 • Democrats a^ree on J6e, - fight over committee seats/4^5 ifflanrbpatpr Mpralb Monday, Aug. 1, 1988 Manchester, Conn. — A City of Village Charm 30 Cents Sewer plant fine OK’d DiRosa won’t reveal the penalty until negotiations end Bv Andrew Yurkovskv treatment plant. the amount of money tobe paid for a fine, Manchester Herald A proposal for the town to pay a $1.5 Twardy said that "a lot^trf dj^erent million fine to the Corps for iliegal work on factors” would have to be considered. Town and federal officials have reached the plant was rejected by the town last Director Ronaid Oselia said that federal an agreement on the amount of money to week, and sources ha ve said that Assistant officials “ have to extract their pound of be paid in fines and other costs for illegal U.S. Attorney Frank Santoro subse­ flesh" to show that they are treating work on the town’s sewage treatment quently offered to cut the fine to $500,000, deveiopers and municipalities that violate plant. Mayor Peter P. DiRosa Jr. said Corps officials have said that a $1.5 wetlands regulations in an equitable today. million fine would be the highest levied in manner. DiRosa said he expected an agreement New England and could be the highest “ According to Peter DiRosa, an accep­ could be reached by late this afternoon levied nationwide. table fine would be zero,” Oselia said. But even though other details of the settlement U.S. Attorney Stanley A.
    [Show full text]