Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Col steal suit.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Just as fate.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Shadows secrest, America squaminologist con sales of the law inclasy,
break and say Bruce.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
And here's America's Criminologist, doctor Curry Myers. Thank you, mister producer.
Welcome to America's Criminologist. I'm doctor Curry Myers, retired major
county sheriff and former special agent State trooper. Also spent
fifteen years in academia. Don't hold that against me, serving
as a school dean and a professor teaching in criminology.
(00:59):
This is show where we talk, as you know, about
crime culture and the foundations to sustain a civil society,
most importantly faith, family, and formation. It's the reason I
wrote my book They have In a Feral Man, where
I talk about reigniting that faith, and I'm working on
the second generation of that book, the Return from Feral Man.
So we're going to get into even more reasons, causal
(01:23):
reasons why we're in the state that we are today,
and then what we can do about it. As always,
if you like to explore more about applied criminology, criminal
justice ethics, and the philosophy behind my programs, visit Substack.
Doctor Curry Meyers dot substack dot com. This segment of
America's criminologists is brought to you by Real Resilience. That's
(01:44):
our eel Resilience. It's a transformative program helping inmates prepare
for successful re entry using inspirational films and guided discussions.
Real Resilience teaches practical tools to build resilience, strength and relateationships,
and restore hope for the future. It's real learning through
(02:04):
real stories, where positive choices are modeled, not just preached.
It's real resilience because re entry isn't just release, it's
a second chance done right. Okay, here's my rift for
the day. My friends, We've reached a dangerous point in
an American criminal justice system where accountability is no longer
(02:24):
the standard. In many states. Unfortunately, it's the exception when
a man serving one hundred and thirty nine years for
the repeated rape of a child becomes eligible for early release.
We're not looking at a glitch in the system. We're
looking at a system that has lost its moral compass.
(02:46):
This isn't about compassion, It's about confusion. Because when policymakers
blur the line between offender and victim, justice collapses. Into chaos.
What we're seeing in right now is the institutionalization of
what I call crimeogenic policy, laws that don't just fail
(03:08):
to prevent crime, but actually incentivize it. And make no mistake,
when you remove consequences, when you weaken family protection, and
when you abandon moral formation, you create the conditions for
what I've long warned about the rise of the firal offender,
untethered from responsibility and enabled by the very system meant
(03:32):
to stop him or her. So tonight we have one
of my favorite guests. Jeffriesig, is the District Attorney of
Yodo County, California, which is one of California's fifty eight
counties located in northern California between the San Francisco Bay
Area and Sacramento. Rizig has served as prosecutor for over
twenty eight years and has been the county's chief elected
(03:55):
law enforcement officer since two thousand and seven, making him
one of california Is now longest serving district attorneys. Had
a successful career, Very proud of him. During his tenure
as DA, he focused intently on advocating for victims of
crime and pursuing a balanced approach to public safety through
strategic methods designed to enhance a fender accountability and reduce
(04:17):
violent crime, while also embracing innovative programs to help those
suffering from serious addiction and mental illness. Recik has achieved
a rare equilibrium in ensuring safe communities and successfully reducing
the criminal justice footprint. Rezik was the first prosecutor in
the nation to launch a third party hosted data transparency
(04:38):
portable portal excuse me, in collaboration with the national nonprofit
organization Measures for Justice. Portal provides the public nearly unrestricted
access to criminal justice data from his office, which is
an amazing thing to have. The citizens of Yellow County
should really appreciate this. District Attorney Rizzik as a member
(05:01):
of the National District Attorney's Association and serves on the
board of directors for the Karpal Foundation. He is also
past president of the California District Attorney Associations and he
was instrumental in the foundation of many of today's laws
that throughout some of the old chaos, such as Proposition
thirty six in support of a Proposition forty seven. So
(05:26):
he has done a great job. Jeff, welcome back, Thanks
for coming on the show.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
Yeah, thank you, Sheriff. It's honored to be joining you today.
I really loved your riff this started out with that
was spot on.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Well, thanks, I appreciate it. And the truth is something
that we should embrace more of, and I know that
you have done that throughout your entire career. And the
citizens again at Yellow County couldn't ask for a better
district attorney and public servant. So, my friend, how does
I'm at a loss for words, a little bit upset
(06:01):
when you see these kinds of issues that occur. But
a man serving one hundred and thirty nine years for
a child rape, how in the world could he be
eligible for early release?
Speaker 5 (06:16):
Yeah, So I just start out by saying, this is
a story about a real life monster, and it's also
a story about a warning to the rest of the
country on how crazy things can go with California leading
the way, when people who are not really thinking about
(06:38):
victims of crime and keeping communities safe enact reckless laws
that allow these monsters to roam free. And so this
story started actually all the way back in nineteen ninety
three in a little farm town in My County near
the Napa County border. There was an eleven year old
(07:01):
girl there who lived with her mother, who was They
were migrants, and the eleven year old the mother brought
a man into the house that she married, and this man,
who was here illegally, by the way, he always has
been here illegally, started to rape her at eleven years old.
(07:23):
He continued to violently rape her from nineteen ninety three
all the way until nineteen ninety nine. And the only
he kept her quiet, by the way, because he knew
that she had been previously molested by a mother's previous boyfriend,
and he used that against her and said that she
(07:43):
would be removed from the house if she were ever
to tell anybody what was going on, and that they
would find her mother unfit. But ultimately, in nineteen ninety nine,
the little girl went into the department of motor vehicles
with her mother and she passed out. Girl passed out.
They rushed her to the hospital. They found out she
was pregnant, and she then disclosed that she had been
(08:07):
impregnated by this man named Israel Seha, and that's how
the whole investigation started, And so that kind of shortened
the story. Once it was discovered by law enforcement of course,
they investigated it. She also disclosed it. Over the years,
he had pistol whipped her, pushed her off roofs and trucks,
(08:27):
trying to induce abortion, and other things. It was charged
by my office. It went to trial in a superior court.
A jury convicted him of all charges, sixteen child rape counts,
and then a judge sentenced him to one hundred and
thirty nine years in prison and told everybody in the courtroom,
(08:49):
this man will never get out. It's over. Thank god. Well,
none of that proved to be true. It wasn't over.
In California, the law was changed and it started back
right before Governor Newsom actually got sworn in the first time.
(09:09):
They passed a law in California called the elder Parole Law.
So ask me how old you have to be to
be considered elderly in California for early release?
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Man, No, in California, I have no idea, but I
know I'm going to be shocked.
Speaker 6 (09:25):
Brother.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Fifty, Oh my goodness.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
Fifty years old, as you're considered elderly under this crazy
law which Newsom. Governor Newsom completely owns at this point
because he actually expanded the law. So what the law
says in California, thanks to Governor Newsom and the super majority,
is that if you are convicted of any crime except
(09:49):
cop killing and three strikes and you're out. There's two
exceptions other than that. You can be convicted of child rape, kidnapping,
even murder. And if you serve twenty years of the
sentence and you hit fifty, you're eligible for elder parole.
(10:09):
And so this guy that raped this little girl and
was sentenced to one hundred and thirty nine years in
prison became eligible for elder parole after serving the twenty
years and was actually granted release provisionally by a two
commissioner panel from a group in California that's called the
Board of Prison terms, excuse me, the Board of Parole Commissioners.
(10:33):
And these are all Newsome appointees. And so two commissioners
recommended his release after he served twenty years. The victim
wasn't there, by the way, and we fought it. And
so the rest of the story, which you know, we
can talk about it, is how we fought it. What
we did, you know, what's coming down the pipe in
California that's even crazier.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Did they make any public announcement to say that this
was what was it available for people to come testify
against it, or it was just he met the protocols
for the release and he's released.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
Yeah, the way it works in California it is pretty secretive.
I mean they'll say these are public hearings, but they're
not broadly advertised anywhere. I mean, unless you're really a sleuth,
you're not going to find out when and where these
hearings are going on. And they don't. There's no requirement
for the Board of Parole commissioners to actually contact the
victims and invite them in. And so the way it
(11:32):
works is the initial hearing to determine whether or not
these elderly people are going to get parolled as they
have two commissioners that meet with the inmate in a
public session. And when I say public, it's not broadcast live.
They do a transcript of the preceding and during that
hearing they ask questions to determine whether or not they
(11:54):
think this candidate should be released. Well, during this the
commissioner hearing in this case involving the man that raped
that girl, the eleven year old, he's said a couple
of things that I find shocking and everyone will find shocking.
He admitted during that hearing that he was still attracted
to little girls, and when the commissioner asked him, well,
how are you going to deal with that if you
release you, his response was I will pray, And the
(12:18):
commissioner found that that was a suitable response and they
released him. Two commissioners ordered his release, and my office
was there, by the way, like I had a prosecutor
that was there objecting vociferously, but they ordered the release
and so then we had to take the next step
of appealing it to Governor Newsom to stop it. And
(12:43):
that just has played out in the last few months.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
So what is to follow up that is what is
Newsom then done with this individual appeal?
Speaker 5 (12:55):
So this is just one of thousands of cases, by
the way, in calif Woarnia child rapists and these people
getting out on elder parole. And Newsom has been surprisingly
quiet on these cases. He is ducking and covering whenever
the he's hit the media, and they've been widespread on
the media, He's not saying a lot about it. And
(13:15):
I've said to people that's because these cases they're monsters
and he knows it. Looks bad for him, and this
is like his Willy Horton moment where he's going to
be responsible for all these child rapists being out. So
in our particular case, I wrote him a letter and
I urged him to intervene to stop the release of
(13:36):
this child rapist. He never replied to me directly in
any way, but the Board of Parole Commissioners did in
panel then a full hearing of all of the commissioners
to review the case. And at that hearing, which just
took place a few weeks ago, we were able to
go and to argue to the full board not to
(13:59):
release this man, and thank god they didn't. They actually
reversed it. But here's the rub. This isn't over, Jriff.
He'll be back in less than six months for another hearing.
So we'll be doing this every time they get the
inkling to give him another elderly parole hearing. There's no
(14:19):
set timeline. The prisons can just keep recommending him. And
so this insanity is playing out in California every day,
all over the state with these child rapists Like I
have this one case, but there's many other cases that
have hit the national media where men have been convicted
of raping many, many children, and they're getting out in
(14:42):
California under this crazy process.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
So it's obvious there isn't any there's no case involvement
or case structure involvement from a mental health or anything.
If that. I mean, usually if the Department of Corrections
would base something on the psych psychiatrists findings that this person,
this person in a court hearing said he still thinks
(15:08):
about little girls. I mean that in itself would have
been found out if they were doing any kind of
procedural inquisition on the part of the Department of Corrections
ahead of these dates to find out even if he
qualifies or are they just I mean if you hit
fifty or are they just going well, that's the category
(15:31):
is from forty nine to fifty, I mean, that's it.
I mean, how many people are you know, it'd be
interesting to know the percentage of people who hit fifty
that automatically get put into this release system.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
Yeah, and it's interesting. You know, in California, the prison
system is under the authority of the governor. So Governor
knew some appoints the director of the California Prison System,
and then he appoints all these parole commissioners, and they
operate in a regulatory environment, which is as you know,
is it's you know, less transparent. There's a lot more
(16:08):
phone calls and arm twisting. I mean, the governor has
made it clear he wants to shut down as many
prisons as possible. Yeah, before and he already has. He's
already shut down three in California or maybe. And so
you know, I'm convinced that my colleagues are convinced that
he's appointed all these parole commissioners and they operate under
this squishy regulatory law to release as many as possible.
(16:31):
I don't have a hard number for you, but I
can tell you that since the law has been in
an effect, it is thousands that have been released under
elderly parole. And it's not just child great there are
other crimes, and you and I might agree that some
of these people should be released. So if they're like
a convicted burglar and he's done twenty years and he's otherwise,
(16:52):
you know, been good in prison, maybe you and I
would even agree that, yeah, let's you know, let's give
him a parole date. And in other states, to be clear,
they do have elder parole laws just like California does.
The difference in California is that there's it's out of control.
I mean, when you have child rapists getting out under
(17:12):
this law. Other states don't do that. No other state
allows child rapists to be paroled under an elder parole law,
and certainly not at the age of fifty.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
Yeah, I mean you and man, there's several things that
you unpack there that need to be addressed. I mean,
first and foremost, almost every state that I know is
operates under that same system where it's where it's becomes
this regulatory leviathan. It seems like where they kind of
just do what they want under the auspice of the
governor's office. Sometimes the people who are appointed to these
(17:43):
positions don't even have any experience in dealing with it.
Sometimes they do, but you know they're gonna it's all
very hand picked, you know, on in making sure that
they hit the check marks on you know, this fits
a certain category, or it's all patronage related in some ways,
(18:05):
it seems like to me, so we almost need to
do something different from a state corrections point of view,
because it becomes this very secretive, very hyper regulatory environment
in which exists, and it seems like most states are
like that. The legislation. It kind of goes back Jeff
that legislators, legislatures often forget their mandate to effectively manage
(18:34):
big government organizations, and the only way to manage them
effectively is have the kind of laws that withhold some
of their regulatory capabilities. And if they don't do that,
then they're going to take advantage of the system big time.
It seems to me at least, Yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Totally agree with that. And again, California is a good
warning to the rest of the country because what's happened
here politically is that the end you know, the Soros
funded NGOs that are very powerful and are sitting on
hundreds and millions of dollars are mega donors. They're major
donors to politicians in Sacramento, lawmakers, and that's just a fact.
(19:15):
I mean, if you look at any of their contributions
to see where the money is coming from, you're going
to trace it back to Soros affiliated groups, ACLU affiliated groups,
labor unions with ties to those groups. And the messaging
and I hear this directly from lawmakers. They are being
instructed to push these early release policies and to support
(19:41):
the squishy regulatory framework because it gives the governor more
power to release. I mean, it's their ideological goal. Period.
That's hard. Stop, that's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Well, here I am asking these questions and you just
hit the nail on the head. It's just that is
their agenda. I mean, that's it doesn't matter what these
results of the agenda. That's their agenda, and they stay
with it. And then they either don't want to talk
about or they you know, or move their hands a
lot and you know, as our you know, as the gov.
(20:18):
Likes to do to you know, talk about something else.
In this particular case, no notification you as a prosecuting attorney,
you did get some sort of did you get notified
or did are you having to constantly watch the Department
of Corrections like website or communicates to see what comes up.
Speaker 5 (20:40):
We did get an email that they were going to
have the hearing, that the two commissioner, two person commission hearing,
and we did send a prosecutor to that. But again
there's no requirement that they bring the victim in and
they didn't. And in this case that you know, that
little girl who's now an adult. This destroyed her life.
(21:00):
She's been living on the streets, you know, near Sacramento.
She's addicted to drugs. We did find her and we
did talk to her, and of course she was devastated
to find out that he was on the verge of
being released again, and we did bring her in. We
had a press conference at a minimum where she spoke.
(21:22):
But around the state, I mean, there's a lot of
these cases where people are being released under elder parole
for similar crimes, where there's no victim input. And like candidly,
a lot of my colleagues, a lot of das don't
have the resources to go and fight it. Yeah, and
so there's a lot of people that are just being
(21:42):
released through the turnstile without opposition.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Yeah, I mean your office. I mean, most California prosecutors
almost have to have a designated attorney just to keep
an eye on these kinds of cases because they don't
it used to be when you prosecute them were successful
that the end you didn't have to you know. Okay,
that's you know, like I think you said before we started.
The judge in this case, what was the comment he
(22:08):
made to the public that you'll never have to see
this monster again, or something like that, after you.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
Looked the victim in the eyes. Yeah, and I mean
this case. In many of these cases, you know, the
judge looks out at the audience and the victim and says,
you know, after they render sentence of life in prison,
you'll never have to worry again. You can go home
and sleep. Well, it's not true. It's absolutely not true
in California. In fact, this is how bad it is.
(22:34):
Sure if I'm at the point now where I have
a policy in my office when we file a case,
we meet with the victims and we always tell them, listen,
you need to understand in California, the sentence that's written
in the books for a crime, that's just a recommendation
and there's no guarantee that the person will serve one day.
We'll do our best to get what we can, but
(22:55):
it's that point. It's at that point in California.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Are you You're very good at keeping data. You've done
your own research before on major cases to find out
whether things work or not. And my kudos to you
because you've been very open about data and collection of
data and sharing it with the public. When you're and
you said about revictimization, how does that look like in practice?
(23:19):
Are you starting to see cases come back in which
a lot of victims have been previously victimized and they
can't get out of their their head and it's causing
other crimeogenic factors in their life, or they're becoming more
easily victimized in the future. Have you been able to
notice any of that, maybe not kept official data, but
(23:43):
you know, any particular things that you've seen as a
result of this kind of anti law enforcement processes in California.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
Well, two answers to that. You know, first, yeah, antcdotally,
I certainly have observed over thirty years in this job
that particularly victims of sexual violence are often revictimized by
other perpetrators because just like with this monster, this guy
that raped the little girl, once he found out that
(24:17):
she had been previously molested, he knew that she was
vulnerable to what he did to her. And we see
that all the time, and I'm sure when you were
sheriff he saw that too, that these children, you know,
especially children or even women in domestic violence situations often
get caught up into this revolving, you know, pattern that
(24:39):
plays out but on the recidivism numbers generally, you didn't
ask that directly, but you know, we know from hard
data that violent offenders when they're released, reoffend at one
hundred and seventy percent higher than a normal person. So
violent offender are just these guys should not be getting out.
(25:03):
I mean, the data tells us that all of the science.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
Yeah, and your data in particular was instrumental because when
I came and did my study of the unattended consequences
or the intended consequence is probably a proposition forty seven,
I included some of your data. Thanks for your hard
work in that. That had to be a major component
in showing the public that the recidivism rate for violent
(25:30):
offenders is not only just it's not only above the
national average, it's way above the national average. Because there's
absolutely no care and stick philosophy and criminal justice in California. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (25:44):
No, the data is unequivocal and it is overwhelming. I
think the public when you get that in front of them,
it really does wake them up, unfortunately in California, and
it hasn't changed their voting patterns. I mean, all of this,
you know we're talking about it just occurs. To me,
it all comes back to how people vote. I mean,
if you're voting for these same lawmakers that are supporting
these crazy bills because either you're a loyal partisan or
(26:08):
you just don't do your homework, that is the root
of this problem. I mean, California is not changing, it's
not getting better on these kind of crazy laws because
these same lawmakers that are beholden to the Soros moneymakers,
they haven't changed their vote.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
Right.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
I don't have any good news to tell you about that.
We've fought at the initiative level and the voters have
agreed with this. But the actual lawmakers, the men and
women that are over there making laws every day, they
haven't changed.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
Yeah, because you've been able to get somewhere close to
seventy percent of the public kind of voting on some
of this craziness, but they're not following up with getting
rid of the people who's actually responsible for the crazy legislation.
Speaker 5 (26:54):
Yeah, bingo, Yeah, that's exactly right, Sheriff.
Speaker 4 (26:58):
So we got about forty seconds before we go to
the break here. Is there really is this really driven
by prison over crowding policy or is it mainly just
the ideology?
Speaker 5 (27:13):
My opinion is it's mainly the ideology of these major
groups that want these folks out for whatever reason. And
we've talked about that in previous shows.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
So what's the common sense what's the common sense fix
that could change this? If any Is there anything that
can be done immediately on this that can change it?
Speaker 5 (27:34):
Well, I mean immediately the governor could issue a moratorium
on any more releases on these under these crazy laws.
He won't, though, so we got to go to the ballot.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Once again, once again, once again. All right, my friends,
when we come back from this commercial break, we will
discuss another troubling issue in the California justice system, how
serious offenders are avoiding prosecution altogether through what now is
being called the Ebstein loophole. So come right back. We'll
see it pretty soon. Hi, folks, Doctor Curry Myers here
(28:21):
to let you know that my new show, it's called
America's Criminologist with Doctor Curry Myers every Tuesday at one pm.
Is a former state trooper special agent share for a
major county. I will offer sharp insights into the pressing
issues shaping American society. Today. I'll have guests, news and
my insights as an applied Criminologist throughout the one hour show,
So criminals and the progressive politicians that allow them to
(28:42):
fester beware because this show is directed at you, America's Criminologist,
every Tuesday at one pm on k E T.
Speaker 7 (28:52):
As you know, I've been talking about standing up for
our country, doing something. These big box stores stayed open?
Speaker 5 (28:59):
Was a little guy close?
Speaker 7 (29:00):
Will our voices be heard? Does voting with our dollars work?
Patriotswitch dot com gives patriots the power to walk away
from the big box stores forever. Stop supporting the enemies
of freedom.
Speaker 5 (29:12):
Now.
Speaker 7 (29:12):
That's why patriotswitch dot com was created for those who
support America. Patriotswitch dot com.
Speaker 8 (29:22):
Take KMET Radio with you everywhere you go by downloading
the new, updated, free iPhone, Android, phone, and tablet remote
app found in the Apple App Store or Google Playstore.
Listen live to your favorite shows on all of your
remote devices. Information can be found on the KMET Radio
website at kme T fourteen ninety am dot com. That
(29:46):
weapon dress again km E T fourteen ninety am dot com.
Download your free new KMET remote app today. Go to
the Apple App Store or Google Playstore for your free
new KMET Radio remote mobile app today.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Hello listeners, this is Christopher from the Christopher Show. Hey,
if you miss one of our shows you're at km ET,
don't worry about it. You can go to our web
page and that's kme ET fourteen ninety am dot com.
Go to the homepage, click on the SoundCloud tab and
hear any show anytime you.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Want our records indicate that you've been lied to. Listen
to The Truth Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs Saturdays
at one pm on KMET.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
Hey, my friends, is doctor Curry Meyers, America's criminologist. I
have a new sponsor for my show. I mean Real Resilience.
That's our ad L transformative program helping inmates prepare for
successful reentry and uses inspirational films and guided discussions. You'll
resil Alliens teaches practical tools to build resilience. It's really
(31:03):
an important tool, real resilience, because reentry isn't just released.
It's a second chance, done right, and we're back. Please
remember to view my work on substack at doctor Currymeers
dot substack dot com. It's got all my published works.
(31:24):
When it comes to criminal justice issues, public policy, those
kinds of things. Also, if you're interested from a faith
point of view, I have a substack called the Saint
Michael's Group substack dot com podcast where I write in
podcast at least once sometimes twice a week, and then
I go across the country and speak about those issues.
(31:44):
I just came back from the University of Idaho. The
Saint Augustin Center there invited me to come out and
speak and it was wonderful. We had a sold out
crowd about three thousand people that came to the basketball
arena there at the University of Idaho. And if you
want to view that talk, it's on my YouTube channel,
(32:06):
doctor Curry Meyer's YouTube channel, so you can just look
at the look up that it's a little bit wrong.
It's about forty five minute talk. And then after we
did that, there was a great theological debate that was
occurring right afterwards. It was very interesting. So I encourage
you to check out that talk on my YouTube channel. Okay,
(32:29):
we're back with Yellow County District Attorney Jeff Reesig, one
of the California's longest serving prosecutors and national voice for
victim advocacy and accountability and justice systems. In this next segment,
we're going to turn to what is called the Epstein loophole.
We're learning more and more about what that means, a
deeply troubling use of mental health diversion laws that are
(32:50):
allowing serious offenders, even in cases involving alleged child abuse,
to avoid jail time. All together, this raise a fundamental
question when does reform cross the line into enabling criminal
behavior and who's praying the price. We got a person
that is seeing it at the front lines with Yellow
(33:11):
County District Attorney Jeff Recig. Jeff, thanks for coming back.
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
Well, you nailed it again with that description on this
another crazy law in California.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
Yeah, it's like they got us on the back end
when you already sentence people and think they're going away
for everybody as a prosecutor, and you put up on
the board of great win and now there's saying that, well,
we're not going to even send you to jail for
these stuff. So it's at the beginning.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, they installed this get out of
jail card in the beginning. Which so the way it
works in California is they passed this law. They call
it the Mental Health diversion law, and if you commit
almost any kind of offense. There's a few offenses that
are excluded, but for the most part, if you show
up at court during that those first few appearances and
(33:59):
you tell the judge that well, I have a mental
disorder and that mental disorder are you ready? Could be
that you're addicted to drugs, because that's a mental disorder
under the diagnostic of Mental disorders, which is the bible
for mental health professionals. Or you could have antisocial personality disorder,
(34:22):
or you know, like there's one hundred different things that
you could say, well, I have this disorder and it
was a significant reason why I committed the crime. And
if the judge believes that, and you can present the
judge a treatment plan, saying, judge, instead of going through
(34:42):
the trial and you know, sending me to jail, will
you give me a chance at doing treatment, the judges
can then stop all of the criminal proceedings and divert
the person into a mental health treatment path. Now what
does that mean. It means that they're not in custody,
they're not in jail, they're released and they're released to
(35:04):
go see a counselor or in some cases, write a
book report or you know, get treatment from a doctor,
and then they check in with the judge over time,
and if the judge is ultimately satisfied that they've done
some treatment, the case is dismissed.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
The DSM has changed so much over the years. When
I first I think I've been around long enough where
I saw really the first edition and looked at that first,
especially in my studies when I started looking at the
academic side for criminology. And now it's amazing what the
DSM is going to look like in another fifty years.
But it's hard to even I mean, there was listed
(35:47):
paraphilic behavior in the original DSMS, and it seems to
me all about half of those have been taken out,
you know, or they've changed the wordage wordage where it
doesn't it isn't as you know, it's friendly, or it's
a nicer version to say, you know, some of the
paraphilic behaviors, that abnormal sexual behaviors that that some people have.
(36:09):
It's almost like it's became become a you're okay, I'm okay,
you have this you know, particular compulsion to do something
and oh that's okay, you know, well we can we
can do with it? You know, you can, you can
come out and exist in society. And well, they're finding
out when you have that compulsion, if you're when it
(36:34):
comes to especially sex drive, it's difficult to get fixed.
It's the studies aren't aren't aren't very good when it
talks about reabilitation to some of these serious sexual addictions.
They're they're hard to They're hard to fix the person
as a result.
Speaker 5 (36:53):
Yeah, I don't think they can't fix those people in
my opinion. But you know what we've seen with this
mental health law. The main offenses that we're seeing people
bring up our anxiety related disorders PTSD, and that can
be enough for them to hang their hook on this,
you know, divert me instead of prosecute me, just as
(37:15):
an aside. I mean, this tells you how like radical
these laws are in a way most people wouldn't expect.
We had a state trooper and highway patrolman in California
that was pulling people over and giving them tickets for
speeding at eighty or ninety miles an hour, and it
was a lie. They had it on camera and on
(37:36):
bodycam and dash cam. CHP ended up investigating this officer
and finding out she had done this many many times,
and then she would come to court and perjure herself
on the cases. Well, long story short, we ended up
filing purgury charges against her. Good for you all, Yeah,
for all of these cases where she lied and dragged
these people through the mud. And she got mental health
(37:59):
diversion because she said she had PTSD from her time
as a cop, and the judge went along with it,
and she didn't spend a day in jail and she'll
never be convicted. This is crazy.
Speaker 4 (38:11):
And talking about violating the trust of the public. Yeah,
when I hear stuff like that, it just, oh, it
just drives me insane.
Speaker 5 (38:19):
It's really outrageous. And then you mentioned at the outset
the Epstein loopholes. So that's referencing a case also in
California where a man was sexually abusing a minor. This
was down in the Central Valley and he was a
prominent figure. He also was abusing her, and the court
(38:43):
the way the charges were filed by the DA allowed
the defendant to get mental health diversion for this fact pattern.
And so we call it the Epstein loophole because when
you're putting your hands on young children, girls, boys, whatever,
with some malevolent purpose, whether it's sexual or otherwise. Like,
(39:05):
these people deserve no quarter. They should not be protected.
But the mental health diversion law is the Epstein loophole. Yeah,
and this guy is not doing any gail time. It's
a big, big story down in the Central Valley. So
you know, our position is, once again, the legislature should
(39:27):
close the loophole. Can't we all agree that if you
touch children you shouldn't be getting the benefit of mental
health diversion. That doesn't seem too crazy.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
What's the lowdown on this suspect? I mean, is there
anything come out that even makes it more? I mean
it's already horrible, but is there stuff in his background
that's even worse that people can imagine?
Speaker 5 (39:55):
Yeah, in that particular case, not really. I mean he
just he's a quasi public official who you know. The argument,
obviously is it looks really bad when you have somebody
like that benefiting from a law like this.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
Yeah. He was like a county commissioner or something like that.
Speaker 5 (40:13):
Yeah. Yeah, and so just it's stinks, it looks it
looks incestuous in that regard.
Speaker 4 (40:18):
And the relative to a judge I think.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
Yeah, relative to an elected official, and so the whole
thing stinks. And that's just again one of thousands of
cases around California. So this has risen to it's the
number one issue in California right now for law enforcement
is shutting this loophole. DA's across the state are united
and trying to get the legislature to narrow the scope
(40:43):
of crimes that can be considered, and we're facing big
resistance from the supermajority. The Democrats do not want to
shut this down for the same reasons that we talked about,
same donors, same ideological you know, because this mental health
diversion has been the single biggest get out of jail
(41:05):
free card anywhere in the country.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
Well, let's talk a moment. I want to give kudos
to the California District Attorneys Association because, Jeff, it seems
to me is you guys have had a united front
pretty much one hundred percent. Maybe there was a couple
prosecutors the public throughout that wasn't on board with you
all in the past, but the California District Attorneys and
(41:31):
this comprises of both sides of the aisle, have been
extremely good on bringing back justice to California, and I
just want to I think it's important for people to
know that the fifty eight counties that are in this state,
(41:53):
you have an incredible amount of people who are saying
all on board, all on board with this, And I
just want to commend your all work, the leadership that's
gone on, the communication that has been able to be
established among you all as public servants, and the fact
(42:14):
that you have stayed together on these important issues. And
I must say that I'm sure the sheriffs have been similar.
You know, of the counties that they have been united.
So now we're doubling that number up to show a
significant number of people I'm talking ninety five more than
likely sometimes close to one hundred percent are all in
(42:36):
the same marching page on these public safety questions. Right, Yeah, now,
that's right.
Speaker 5 (42:43):
The DA's and the sheriffs have been aligned for about
the last four years. We did have a few bad
actors in the elected DA group for a while. You know,
you had Georgia Gascon in Los Angeles and Chessa Bodine
and San Francisco. They threw them out, So you're right,
I mean, we are the last bastion of defense for
the public and victims. Because Newsom abandoned those people. The legislature,
(43:09):
the super majority abandoned those people. It's really the das
and the sheriffs and the police chiefs to a lesser extent,
they're pretty believe it or not, police chiefs are the
most political animal in the whole business.
Speaker 4 (43:21):
Oh they are. They're far more political than a share.
I mean, people say, why I have an elected sheriff.
The sheriff's position gives you in I'd say, the das
gives you the freedom to speak, you know, unlike anything else.
And I feel sometimes I feel bad for police. I
know some that are very outspoken, but they have enough
shine on their pants where they've been able to say,
(43:41):
I don't really care. What there You know, you want
to fire me, fire me? I don't, I don't care,
you know. So, you know some of them that's been
able to do it. But it's like the poor LA chief.
I think in the in the back of his mind,
he wants to say things that he can't say, but
he's he's got, you know, got his hands kind of tied.
(44:03):
Just think, good goodness, goodness, you know they have a
good DA. Now they're at least in La County they do.
Speaker 5 (44:09):
Yeah, Nathan Hockell is the real deal. But now you
nailed it, I mean, having been the sheriff, I mean
you know you're right. I mean you get elected once
every four years and then you're free to say whatever
you want, which you know is great. Whereas the police
chiefs every day their jobs on the line from the
city council and the pas and et cetera, et cetera.
So but yeah, the das and the sheriffs has certainly
(44:30):
been the leaders on public safety issues in California.
Speaker 4 (44:34):
So yeah, no, So where are lawmakers miscalculating? Again? If
it's I I struggle with getting my arms around the
electoral electorate, and that is here we are electing sheriffs
and DA's who have common sense public safety things that
(44:54):
they want to do from a policy point of view.
But then they go out and elect presentatives and senators
in the saints same counties that don't reflect the das
and the sheriffs, and I can't get marms around it.
I don't understand why that's. I know that you know,
(45:15):
from a criminal justice philosophy, generally sheriffs and DA's are
a little bit more law enforcement. You know, let's go
out and arrest people and hold people accountable within reason.
But I just it just doesn't make sense to me
how we kind of are in this really strange place
in California.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
Yeah, it's a great point, and I think my response
to that would be these laws that we're all talking
about today are complex. There's a lot of nuances and
criminal laws that you know, as career DA's and sheriffs
are not easy to figure out. And so when you
throw this stuff at the public in sound bites like
(45:56):
lawmakers do, and they you know, soften them up with
you know, well, this is I'm supporting the uh, you know,
give the second chances, give the youth second chances law.
Well that sounds really good. You're you know, Joe citizen
who lives in a white picket fence community in Morin.
But you know, there is complexities to the law that then,
(46:20):
as we know, often end up causing terrible consequences. So
I'm just looking at I'm convinced that most voters are
operating on limited information when they make decisions about which
candidate they are going to vote for, and that partisan
loyalty on either side can lead to disastrous choices, and
(46:45):
you know, you have to follow the money on these
candidates to see who's really pulling their strings.
Speaker 4 (46:53):
You know, I never thought about this, but you know,
I think you're absolutely right. Is the way that the
language has been in a lot of these amendments have
been very Oh that makes sense, Yeah, we ought to
do that. This is it's like the perfect language that
they've they've been able to research and say we're going
to have it this, and then nothing reflects that language
(47:15):
in the amendment. Right, Yeah, I think Proposition thirty six
was a perfect example of language that did not reflect
anything that was in the actual amendment.
Speaker 5 (47:27):
Prop forty seven, the original Yeah, I'm.
Speaker 4 (47:30):
Sorry, Yeah. Prop thirty six corrected it, so yeah, sorry,
right yeah.
Speaker 5 (47:34):
Prop forty seven. I mean that was when Kamala Harris
was our Attorney general when that one passed. And yeah,
they called it the safe Neighborhoods and Schools Acting. Yeah,
it was none of those things, but it sounded really good.
Speaker 4 (47:45):
Yeah. Yeah. So let me ask you some about some
prosecutorial constraints because this is concerning me now. Are prosecutors
being boxed out from charging decisions or leverage as a
result of these kinds of criminal justice laws that are
being inactive that's fought on well.
Speaker 5 (48:08):
The mental health diversion law is a great example of that.
It essentially takes the prosecutor's executive authority out of the
whole equation because when that person comes into that court
the courtroom the very first day, they can get out
of a prosecution and any penalty just by convincing the
(48:29):
judge that they've got a mental disorder of some kind
anxiety PTSD, and they can make a deal with the
judge for treatment. It's happening all over California every day,
a thousand times a day, and I can do nothing.
I can scream, I can pound the table, I can
come on shows and talk about it. But you're exactly right.
(48:53):
And the legislature and the people that are motives that
are pushing this ideology, they know that. And it's my
opinion that so many of these diversion laws are being
designed and pushed to eliminate the opposition to what they're
trying to accomplish, and the opposition.
Speaker 4 (49:13):
Is us, Yeah, is one of the reasons for this.
I support treatment. I know you support treatment, but there's
got to be a line somewhere and Prop forty seven
brought three important carrot and stick options to judges prosecutors,
that is, jail, mental health, mandatory mental health treatment, mandatory
(49:36):
drug treatment.
Speaker 5 (49:38):
Is this.
Speaker 4 (49:40):
Somehow a way to work around that where the Prop
forty seven doesn't actually get to fruition because you're just
not even charging as a result of mental illness, even
though you finally corrected the Prop forty seven from original
where they lost that discretion exactly.
Speaker 5 (50:03):
So Prop thirty six was the fix that we just
passed in California. Sorry I misspoken again, Now that's okay,
and that I was pivotal in that whole campaign and
we did. We got the Electric to agree with us
to change the law to bring back mandated treatment and accountability.
But to your point, what we're seeing now with mental
(50:25):
health diversion is that the defendants and the defense attorneys
are using that as an end around, yeah, the loophole.
So instead of having to go through a mandated treatment
program under Prop thirty six, which is very intensive in
supervision and requirements for successful completion, instead they're just showing
(50:46):
up on day one and saying, oh no, I don't
want that. I don't want to take that path. I
have a mental health issue, and I want to have
diversion under this mental health diversion law, and they're doing that.
Speaker 4 (50:59):
What do you think the recidivism rate is with this?
I know you can't. It's hard to figure this one out.
But there's a lot of people that are reoffending that
never get it's on constant diversion.
Speaker 5 (51:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (51:12):
I go to make the same argument if I have
anxiety because I'm bald, you know, and it hurts my
feelings when people say I'm bald, and so I have
a huge judge. I have a huge anxiety about that,
and it's a reason I shoplift or whatever it may be.
I could come back with that same reasoning every time
I commit a criminal.
Speaker 5 (51:34):
Act, and they do, and if you get a different
judge every time, they might buy it. Yeah, it's a
great question. We don't have that data. It's the one
thing about California that's very frustrating for practitioners is like me,
it's so big. It's almost forty million people, although it's
decreasing every year, you know, as people flee, but it's
(51:57):
so big. You got fifty eight counties. I mean, County
alone has nearly twelve million people. So there's no coordination
really between the counties on data collection, and so we
don't have solid numbers. And even at the state level,
the State of California is completely broken on collecting data,
which is no surprise, right. So I just know antidotally.
(52:20):
I know from local data that the mental health diversion
program has resulted in significant recidivism and people being killed
because they're out on mental health diversion and then they
kill somebody. I mean, that happens, big case, big headline,
and then the public moves on to the next thing.
But we don't have solid data showing the pattern over time,
(52:43):
not yet.
Speaker 4 (52:44):
Yeah, and Jeff, that's one of the reasons I just
don't trust the data anymore. People can say that right
now that we're going through a real slow period and criminality,
that the numbers are way off, and then I talk
to people like you and officers on the street. To me,
it's the fact that we have d CREM we have
less police on the streets. We have these laws that
(53:06):
you've mentioned that have been enacted, so nobody's going to
jail for anything. That doesn't stop criminality from occurring. But
it doesn't it lowers the numbers because and then you
have victim appathy on top of it. People give victimized
so much, they just they no longer call police when
they are victimized, if you know, they try to handle
themselves remove And I can't help but say that we
(53:32):
can't rely on public safety data on crime to be
the same that it was twenty five years ago because
our collection process has been massacred.
Speaker 5 (53:44):
It's definitely true in Yeah, that's definitely true in California.
I don't know about the rest of the country. I mean,
I would hope that some states do a better job.
Speaker 6 (53:52):
Well.
Speaker 4 (53:52):
I think there are some states that are smaller that
can get the data that they need. So I don't
think it's everywhere, but it certainly seems. I don't think
crime's down in blue blue states. I just I think
the data is so skewed because nobody is being arrested
for the and certainly not charged for the offenses that
(54:12):
are going on, and that that's used the national numbers.
Speaker 5 (54:17):
I totally agree with you on that, and I think
it's we'll see, you know what happens over the next
few years with the FBI under new leadership, But they're
actually I think doing a pretty good job of trying
to accurately report some of the violent crime data, so
but on a state by state basis, it's kind of
a mess yep.
Speaker 4 (54:39):
Jeff risy Yolo County District Attorney, thanks for coming on
the show. How can people follow your work?
Speaker 5 (54:44):
Thank you? Sheriff. Well, my website is www dot Yolo
DA dot org and I'd love for people to give
us follow.
Speaker 4 (54:54):
Yeah, do me a favor. Follow this man. He's wonderful
and he really gives information out to the PubL Blake
my friends. I'm retired Sheriff Curry Myers. This has been
America's criminologist and I will see you next week, same
bat time, same bat channel. And don't forget to check
out my work on substack. Doctor Curry Myers dot substack
dot com.
Speaker 1 (55:13):
Stay safe, cal steals suits for Cavil's wait shut us
dis trusting me as a fate.
Speaker 3 (55:26):
A man shadows a secret life. Doctor curry lyons, let's
do the scot. A male cosquem analogist coming to live
seals of the law in the anlysy cackles a crime
(55:46):
break in the same booth.
Speaker 1 (55:49):
Start the fame
Col steal suit.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Just as fate.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
Shadows secrest, America squaminologist con sales of the law inclasy,
break and say Bruce.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
And here's America's Criminologist, doctor Curry Myers. Thank you, mister producer.
Welcome to America's Criminologist. I'm doctor Curry Myers, retired major
county sheriff and former special agent State trooper. Also spent
fifteen years in academia. Don't hold that against me, serving
as a school dean and a professor teaching in criminology.
(00:59):
This is show where we talk, as you know, about
crime culture and the foundations to sustain a civil society,
most importantly faith, family, and formation. It's the reason I
wrote my book They have In a Feral Man, where
I talk about reigniting that faith, and I'm working on
the second generation of that book, the Return from Feral Man.
So we're going to get into even more reasons, causal
(01:23):
reasons why we're in the state that we are today,
and then what we can do about it. As always,
if you like to explore more about applied criminology, criminal
justice ethics, and the philosophy behind my programs, visit Substack.
Doctor Curry Meyers dot substack dot com. This segment of
America's criminologists is brought to you by Real Resilience. That's
(01:44):
our eel Resilience. It's a transformative program helping inmates prepare
for successful re entry using inspirational films and guided discussions.
Real Resilience teaches practical tools to build resilience, strength and relateationships,
and restore hope for the future. It's real learning through
(02:04):
real stories, where positive choices are modeled, not just preached.
It's real resilience because re entry isn't just release, it's
a second chance done right. Okay, here's my rift for
the day. My friends, We've reached a dangerous point in
an American criminal justice system where accountability is no longer
(02:24):
the standard. In many states. Unfortunately, it's the exception when
a man serving one hundred and thirty nine years for
the repeated rape of a child becomes eligible for early release.
We're not looking at a glitch in the system. We're
looking at a system that has lost its moral compass.
(02:46):
This isn't about compassion, It's about confusion. Because when policymakers
blur the line between offender and victim, justice collapses. Into chaos.
What we're seeing in right now is the institutionalization of
what I call crimeogenic policy, laws that don't just fail
(03:08):
to prevent crime, but actually incentivize it. And make no mistake,
when you remove consequences, when you weaken family protection, and
when you abandon moral formation, you create the conditions for
what I've long warned about the rise of the firal offender,
untethered from responsibility and enabled by the very system meant
(03:32):
to stop him or her. So tonight we have one
of my favorite guests. Jeffriesig, is the District Attorney of
Yodo County, California, which is one of California's fifty eight
counties located in northern California between the San Francisco Bay
Area and Sacramento. Rizig has served as prosecutor for over
twenty eight years and has been the county's chief elected
(03:55):
law enforcement officer since two thousand and seven, making him
one of california Is now longest serving district attorneys. Had
a successful career, Very proud of him. During his tenure
as DA, he focused intently on advocating for victims of
crime and pursuing a balanced approach to public safety through
strategic methods designed to enhance a fender accountability and reduce
(04:17):
violent crime, while also embracing innovative programs to help those
suffering from serious addiction and mental illness. Recik has achieved
a rare equilibrium in ensuring safe communities and successfully reducing
the criminal justice footprint. Rezik was the first prosecutor in
the nation to launch a third party hosted data transparency
(04:38):
portable portal excuse me, in collaboration with the national nonprofit
organization Measures for Justice. Portal provides the public nearly unrestricted
access to criminal justice data from his office, which is
an amazing thing to have. The citizens of Yellow County
should really appreciate this. District Attorney Rizzik as a member
(05:01):
of the National District Attorney's Association and serves on the
board of directors for the Karpal Foundation. He is also
past president of the California District Attorney Associations and he
was instrumental in the foundation of many of today's laws
that throughout some of the old chaos, such as Proposition
thirty six in support of a Proposition forty seven. So
(05:26):
he has done a great job. Jeff, welcome back, Thanks
for coming on the show.
Speaker 5 (05:31):
Yeah, thank you, Sheriff. It's honored to be joining you today.
I really loved your riff this started out with that
was spot on.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Well, thanks, I appreciate it. And the truth is something
that we should embrace more of, and I know that
you have done that throughout your entire career. And the
citizens again at Yellow County couldn't ask for a better
district attorney and public servant. So, my friend, how does
I'm at a loss for words, a little bit upset
(06:01):
when you see these kinds of issues that occur. But
a man serving one hundred and thirty nine years for
a child rape, how in the world could he be
eligible for early release?
Speaker 5 (06:16):
Yeah, So I just start out by saying, this is
a story about a real life monster, and it's also
a story about a warning to the rest of the
country on how crazy things can go with California leading
the way, when people who are not really thinking about
(06:38):
victims of crime and keeping communities safe enact reckless laws
that allow these monsters to roam free. And so this
story started actually all the way back in nineteen ninety
three in a little farm town in My County near
the Napa County border. There was an eleven year old
(07:01):
girl there who lived with her mother, who was They
were migrants, and the eleven year old the mother brought
a man into the house that she married, and this man,
who was here illegally, by the way, he always has
been here illegally, started to rape her at eleven years old.
(07:23):
He continued to violently rape her from nineteen ninety three
all the way until nineteen ninety nine. And the only
he kept her quiet, by the way, because he knew
that she had been previously molested by a mother's previous boyfriend,
and he used that against her and said that she
(07:43):
would be removed from the house if she were ever
to tell anybody what was going on, and that they
would find her mother unfit. But ultimately, in nineteen ninety nine,
the little girl went into the department of motor vehicles
with her mother and she passed out. Girl passed out.
They rushed her to the hospital. They found out she
was pregnant, and she then disclosed that she had been
(08:07):
impregnated by this man named Israel Seha, and that's how
the whole investigation started, And so that kind of shortened
the story. Once it was discovered by law enforcement of course,
they investigated it. She also disclosed it. Over the years,
he had pistol whipped her, pushed her off roofs and trucks,
(08:27):
trying to induce abortion, and other things. It was charged
by my office. It went to trial in a superior court.
A jury convicted him of all charges, sixteen child rape counts,
and then a judge sentenced him to one hundred and
thirty nine years in prison and told everybody in the courtroom,
(08:49):
this man will never get out. It's over. Thank god. Well,
none of that proved to be true. It wasn't over.
In California, the law was changed and it started back
right before Governor Newsom actually got sworn in the first time.
(09:09):
They passed a law in California called the elder Parole Law.
So ask me how old you have to be to
be considered elderly in California for early release?
Speaker 4 (09:21):
Man, No, in California, I have no idea, but I
know I'm going to be shocked.
Speaker 6 (09:25):
Brother.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
Fifty, Oh my goodness.
Speaker 5 (09:29):
Fifty years old, as you're considered elderly under this crazy
law which Newsom. Governor Newsom completely owns at this point
because he actually expanded the law. So what the law
says in California, thanks to Governor Newsom and the super majority,
is that if you are convicted of any crime except
(09:49):
cop killing and three strikes and you're out. There's two
exceptions other than that. You can be convicted of child rape, kidnapping,
even murder. And if you serve twenty years of the
sentence and you hit fifty, you're eligible for elder parole.
(10:09):
And so this guy that raped this little girl and
was sentenced to one hundred and thirty nine years in
prison became eligible for elder parole after serving the twenty
years and was actually granted release provisionally by a two
commissioner panel from a group in California that's called the
Board of Prison terms, excuse me, the Board of Parole Commissioners.
(10:33):
And these are all Newsome appointees. And so two commissioners
recommended his release after he served twenty years. The victim
wasn't there, by the way, and we fought it. And
so the rest of the story, which you know, we
can talk about it, is how we fought it. What
we did, you know, what's coming down the pipe in
California that's even crazier.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
Did they make any public announcement to say that this
was what was it available for people to come testify
against it, or it was just he met the protocols
for the release and he's released.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
Yeah, the way it works in California it is pretty secretive.
I mean they'll say these are public hearings, but they're
not broadly advertised anywhere. I mean, unless you're really a sleuth,
you're not going to find out when and where these
hearings are going on. And they don't. There's no requirement
for the Board of Parole commissioners to actually contact the
victims and invite them in. And so the way it
(11:32):
works is the initial hearing to determine whether or not
these elderly people are going to get parolled as they
have two commissioners that meet with the inmate in a
public session. And when I say public, it's not broadcast live.
They do a transcript of the preceding and during that
hearing they ask questions to determine whether or not they
(11:54):
think this candidate should be released. Well, during this the
commissioner hearing in this case involving the man that raped
that girl, the eleven year old, he's said a couple
of things that I find shocking and everyone will find shocking.
He admitted during that hearing that he was still attracted
to little girls, and when the commissioner asked him, well,
how are you going to deal with that if you
release you, his response was I will pray, And the
(12:18):
commissioner found that that was a suitable response and they
released him. Two commissioners ordered his release, and my office
was there, by the way, like I had a prosecutor
that was there objecting vociferously, but they ordered the release
and so then we had to take the next step
of appealing it to Governor Newsom to stop it. And
(12:43):
that just has played out in the last few months.
Speaker 4 (12:48):
So what is to follow up that is what is
Newsom then done with this individual appeal?
Speaker 5 (12:55):
So this is just one of thousands of cases, by
the way, in calif Woarnia child rapists and these people
getting out on elder parole. And Newsom has been surprisingly
quiet on these cases. He is ducking and covering whenever
the he's hit the media, and they've been widespread on
the media, He's not saying a lot about it. And
(13:15):
I've said to people that's because these cases they're monsters
and he knows it. Looks bad for him, and this
is like his Willy Horton moment where he's going to
be responsible for all these child rapists being out. So
in our particular case, I wrote him a letter and
I urged him to intervene to stop the release of
(13:36):
this child rapist. He never replied to me directly in
any way, but the Board of Parole Commissioners did in
panel then a full hearing of all of the commissioners
to review the case. And at that hearing, which just
took place a few weeks ago, we were able to
go and to argue to the full board not to
(13:59):
release this man, and thank god they didn't. They actually
reversed it. But here's the rub. This isn't over, Jriff.
He'll be back in less than six months for another hearing.
So we'll be doing this every time they get the
inkling to give him another elderly parole hearing. There's no
(14:19):
set timeline. The prisons can just keep recommending him. And
so this insanity is playing out in California every day,
all over the state with these child rapists Like I
have this one case, but there's many other cases that
have hit the national media where men have been convicted
of raping many, many children, and they're getting out in
(14:42):
California under this crazy process.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
So it's obvious there isn't any there's no case involvement
or case structure involvement from a mental health or anything.
If that. I mean, usually if the Department of Corrections
would base something on the psych psychiatrists findings that this person,
this person in a court hearing said he still thinks
(15:08):
about little girls. I mean that in itself would have
been found out if they were doing any kind of
procedural inquisition on the part of the Department of Corrections
ahead of these dates to find out even if he
qualifies or are they just I mean if you hit
fifty or are they just going well, that's the category
(15:31):
is from forty nine to fifty, I mean, that's it.
I mean, how many people are you know, it'd be
interesting to know the percentage of people who hit fifty
that automatically get put into this release system.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
Yeah, and it's interesting. You know, in California, the prison
system is under the authority of the governor. So Governor
knew some appoints the director of the California Prison System,
and then he appoints all these parole commissioners, and they
operate in a regulatory environment, which is as you know,
is it's you know, less transparent. There's a lot more
(16:08):
phone calls and arm twisting. I mean, the governor has
made it clear he wants to shut down as many
prisons as possible. Yeah, before and he already has. He's
already shut down three in California or maybe. And so
you know, I'm convinced that my colleagues are convinced that
he's appointed all these parole commissioners and they operate under
this squishy regulatory law to release as many as possible.
(16:31):
I don't have a hard number for you, but I
can tell you that since the law has been in
an effect, it is thousands that have been released under
elderly parole. And it's not just child great there are
other crimes, and you and I might agree that some
of these people should be released. So if they're like
a convicted burglar and he's done twenty years and he's otherwise,
(16:52):
you know, been good in prison, maybe you and I
would even agree that, yeah, let's you know, let's give
him a parole date. And in other states, to be clear,
they do have elder parole laws just like California does.
The difference in California is that there's it's out of control.
I mean, when you have child rapists getting out under
(17:12):
this law. Other states don't do that. No other state
allows child rapists to be paroled under an elder parole law,
and certainly not at the age of fifty.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
Yeah, I mean you and man, there's several things that
you unpack there that need to be addressed. I mean,
first and foremost, almost every state that I know is
operates under that same system where it's where it's becomes
this regulatory leviathan. It seems like where they kind of
just do what they want under the auspice of the
governor's office. Sometimes the people who are appointed to these
(17:43):
positions don't even have any experience in dealing with it.
Sometimes they do, but you know they're gonna it's all
very hand picked, you know, on in making sure that
they hit the check marks on you know, this fits
a certain category, or it's all patronage related in some ways,
(18:05):
it seems like to me, so we almost need to
do something different from a state corrections point of view,
because it becomes this very secretive, very hyper regulatory environment
in which exists, and it seems like most states are
like that. The legislation. It kind of goes back Jeff
that legislators, legislatures often forget their mandate to effectively manage
(18:34):
big government organizations, and the only way to manage them
effectively is have the kind of laws that withhold some
of their regulatory capabilities. And if they don't do that,
then they're going to take advantage of the system big time.
It seems to me at least, Yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Totally agree with that. And again, California is a good
warning to the rest of the country because what's happened
here politically is that the end you know, the Soros
funded NGOs that are very powerful and are sitting on
hundreds and millions of dollars are mega donors. They're major
donors to politicians in Sacramento, lawmakers, and that's just a fact.
(19:15):
I mean, if you look at any of their contributions
to see where the money is coming from, you're going
to trace it back to Soros affiliated groups, ACLU affiliated groups,
labor unions with ties to those groups. And the messaging
and I hear this directly from lawmakers. They are being
instructed to push these early release policies and to support
(19:41):
the squishy regulatory framework because it gives the governor more
power to release. I mean, it's their ideological goal. Period.
That's hard. Stop, that's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Well, here I am asking these questions and you just
hit the nail on the head. It's just that is
their agenda. I mean, that's it doesn't matter what these
results of the agenda. That's their agenda, and they stay
with it. And then they either don't want to talk
about or they you know, or move their hands a
lot and you know, as our you know, as the gov.
(20:18):
Likes to do to you know, talk about something else.
In this particular case, no notification you as a prosecuting attorney,
you did get some sort of did you get notified
or did are you having to constantly watch the Department
of Corrections like website or communicates to see what comes up.
Speaker 5 (20:40):
We did get an email that they were going to
have the hearing, that the two commissioner, two person commission hearing,
and we did send a prosecutor to that. But again
there's no requirement that they bring the victim in and
they didn't. And in this case that you know, that
little girl who's now an adult. This destroyed her life.
(21:00):
She's been living on the streets, you know, near Sacramento.
She's addicted to drugs. We did find her and we
did talk to her, and of course she was devastated
to find out that he was on the verge of
being released again, and we did bring her in. We
had a press conference at a minimum where she spoke.
(21:22):
But around the state, I mean, there's a lot of
these cases where people are being released under elder parole
for similar crimes, where there's no victim input. And like candidly,
a lot of my colleagues, a lot of das don't
have the resources to go and fight it. Yeah, and
so there's a lot of people that are just being
(21:42):
released through the turnstile without opposition.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Yeah, I mean your office. I mean, most California prosecutors
almost have to have a designated attorney just to keep
an eye on these kinds of cases because they don't
it used to be when you prosecute them were successful
that the end you didn't have to you know. Okay,
that's you know, like I think you said before we started.
The judge in this case, what was the comment he
(22:08):
made to the public that you'll never have to see
this monster again, or something like that, after you.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
Looked the victim in the eyes. Yeah, and I mean
this case. In many of these cases, you know, the
judge looks out at the audience and the victim and says,
you know, after they render sentence of life in prison,
you'll never have to worry again. You can go home
and sleep. Well, it's not true. It's absolutely not true
in California. In fact, this is how bad it is.
(22:34):
Sure if I'm at the point now where I have
a policy in my office when we file a case,
we meet with the victims and we always tell them, listen,
you need to understand in California, the sentence that's written
in the books for a crime, that's just a recommendation
and there's no guarantee that the person will serve one day.
We'll do our best to get what we can, but
(22:55):
it's that point. It's at that point in California.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Are you You're very good at keeping data. You've done
your own research before on major cases to find out
whether things work or not. And my kudos to you
because you've been very open about data and collection of
data and sharing it with the public. When you're and
you said about revictimization, how does that look like in practice?
(23:19):
Are you starting to see cases come back in which
a lot of victims have been previously victimized and they
can't get out of their their head and it's causing
other crimeogenic factors in their life, or they're becoming more
easily victimized in the future. Have you been able to
notice any of that, maybe not kept official data, but
(23:43):
you know, any particular things that you've seen as a
result of this kind of anti law enforcement processes in California.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
Well, two answers to that. You know, first, yeah, antcdotally,
I certainly have observed over thirty years in this job
that particularly victims of sexual violence are often revictimized by
other perpetrators because just like with this monster, this guy
that raped the little girl, once he found out that
(24:17):
she had been previously molested, he knew that she was
vulnerable to what he did to her. And we see
that all the time, and I'm sure when you were
sheriff he saw that too, that these children, you know,
especially children or even women in domestic violence situations often
get caught up into this revolving, you know, pattern that
(24:39):
plays out but on the recidivism numbers generally, you didn't
ask that directly, but you know, we know from hard
data that violent offenders when they're released, reoffend at one
hundred and seventy percent higher than a normal person. So
violent offender are just these guys should not be getting out.
(25:03):
I mean, the data tells us that all of the science.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
Yeah, and your data in particular was instrumental because when
I came and did my study of the unattended consequences
or the intended consequence is probably a proposition forty seven,
I included some of your data. Thanks for your hard
work in that. That had to be a major component
in showing the public that the recidivism rate for violent
(25:30):
offenders is not only just it's not only above the
national average, it's way above the national average. Because there's
absolutely no care and stick philosophy and criminal justice in California. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (25:44):
No, the data is unequivocal and it is overwhelming. I
think the public when you get that in front of them,
it really does wake them up, unfortunately in California, and
it hasn't changed their voting patterns. I mean, all of this,
you know we're talking about it just occurs. To me,
it all comes back to how people vote. I mean,
if you're voting for these same lawmakers that are supporting
these crazy bills because either you're a loyal partisan or
(26:08):
you just don't do your homework, that is the root
of this problem. I mean, California is not changing, it's
not getting better on these kind of crazy laws because
these same lawmakers that are beholden to the Soros moneymakers,
they haven't changed their vote.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
Right.
Speaker 5 (26:27):
I don't have any good news to tell you about that.
We've fought at the initiative level and the voters have
agreed with this. But the actual lawmakers, the men and
women that are over there making laws every day, they
haven't changed.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
Yeah, because you've been able to get somewhere close to
seventy percent of the public kind of voting on some
of this craziness, but they're not following up with getting
rid of the people who's actually responsible for the crazy legislation.
Speaker 5 (26:54):
Yeah, bingo, Yeah, that's exactly right, Sheriff.
Speaker 4 (26:58):
So we got about forty seconds before we go to
the break here. Is there really is this really driven
by prison over crowding policy or is it mainly just
the ideology?
Speaker 5 (27:13):
My opinion is it's mainly the ideology of these major
groups that want these folks out for whatever reason. And
we've talked about that in previous shows.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
So what's the common sense what's the common sense fix
that could change this? If any Is there anything that
can be done immediately on this that can change it?
Speaker 5 (27:34):
Well, I mean immediately the governor could issue a moratorium
on any more releases on these under these crazy laws.
He won't, though, so we got to go to the ballot.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
Once again, once again, once again. All right, my friends,
when we come back from this commercial break, we will
discuss another troubling issue in the California justice system, how
serious offenders are avoiding prosecution altogether through what now is
being called the Ebstein loophole. So come right back. We'll
see it pretty soon. Hi, folks, Doctor Curry Myers here
(28:21):
to let you know that my new show, it's called
America's Criminologist with Doctor Curry Myers every Tuesday at one pm.
Is a former state trooper special agent share for a
major county. I will offer sharp insights into the pressing
issues shaping American society. Today. I'll have guests, news and
my insights as an applied Criminologist throughout the one hour show,
So criminals and the progressive politicians that allow them to
(28:42):
fester beware because this show is directed at you, America's Criminologist,
every Tuesday at one pm on k E T.
Speaker 7 (28:52):
As you know, I've been talking about standing up for
our country, doing something. These big box stores stayed open?
Speaker 5 (28:59):
Was a little guy close?
Speaker 7 (29:00):
Will our voices be heard? Does voting with our dollars work?
Patriotswitch dot com gives patriots the power to walk away
from the big box stores forever. Stop supporting the enemies
of freedom.
Speaker 5 (29:12):
Now.
Speaker 7 (29:12):
That's why patriotswitch dot com was created for those who
support America. Patriotswitch dot com.
Speaker 8 (29:22):
Take KMET Radio with you everywhere you go by downloading
the new, updated, free iPhone, Android, phone, and tablet remote
app found in the Apple App Store or Google Playstore.
Listen live to your favorite shows on all of your
remote devices. Information can be found on the KMET Radio
website at kme T fourteen ninety am dot com. That
(29:46):
weapon dress again km E T fourteen ninety am dot com.
Download your free new KMET remote app today. Go to
the Apple App Store or Google Playstore for your free
new KMET Radio remote mobile app today.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Hello listeners, this is Christopher from the Christopher Show. Hey,
if you miss one of our shows you're at km ET,
don't worry about it. You can go to our web
page and that's kme ET fourteen ninety am dot com.
Go to the homepage, click on the SoundCloud tab and
hear any show anytime you.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Want our records indicate that you've been lied to. Listen
to The Truth Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs Saturdays
at one pm on KMET.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
Hey, my friends, is doctor Curry Meyers, America's criminologist. I
have a new sponsor for my show. I mean Real Resilience.
That's our ad L transformative program helping inmates prepare for
successful reentry and uses inspirational films and guided discussions. You'll
resil Alliens teaches practical tools to build resilience. It's really
(31:03):
an important tool, real resilience, because reentry isn't just released.
It's a second chance, done right, and we're back. Please
remember to view my work on substack at doctor Currymeers
dot substack dot com. It's got all my published works.
(31:24):
When it comes to criminal justice issues, public policy, those
kinds of things. Also, if you're interested from a faith
point of view, I have a substack called the Saint
Michael's Group substack dot com podcast where I write in
podcast at least once sometimes twice a week, and then
I go across the country and speak about those issues.
(31:44):
I just came back from the University of Idaho. The
Saint Augustin Center there invited me to come out and
speak and it was wonderful. We had a sold out
crowd about three thousand people that came to the basketball
arena there at the University of Idaho. And if you
want to view that talk, it's on my YouTube channel,
(32:06):
doctor Curry Meyer's YouTube channel, so you can just look
at the look up that it's a little bit wrong.
It's about forty five minute talk. And then after we
did that, there was a great theological debate that was
occurring right afterwards. It was very interesting. So I encourage
you to check out that talk on my YouTube channel. Okay,
(32:29):
we're back with Yellow County District Attorney Jeff Reesig, one
of the California's longest serving prosecutors and national voice for
victim advocacy and accountability and justice systems. In this next segment,
we're going to turn to what is called the Epstein loophole.
We're learning more and more about what that means, a
deeply troubling use of mental health diversion laws that are
(32:50):
allowing serious offenders, even in cases involving alleged child abuse,
to avoid jail time. All together, this raise a fundamental
question when does reform cross the line into enabling criminal
behavior and who's praying the price. We got a person
that is seeing it at the front lines with Yellow
(33:11):
County District Attorney Jeff Recig. Jeff, thanks for coming back.
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
Well, you nailed it again with that description on this
another crazy law in California.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
Yeah, it's like they got us on the back end
when you already sentence people and think they're going away
for everybody as a prosecutor, and you put up on
the board of great win and now there's saying that, well,
we're not going to even send you to jail for
these stuff. So it's at the beginning.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, they installed this get out of
jail card in the beginning. Which so the way it
works in California is they passed this law. They call
it the Mental Health diversion law, and if you commit
almost any kind of offense. There's a few offenses that
are excluded, but for the most part, if you show
up at court during that those first few appearances and
(33:59):
you tell the judge that well, I have a mental
disorder and that mental disorder are you ready? Could be
that you're addicted to drugs, because that's a mental disorder
under the diagnostic of Mental disorders, which is the bible
for mental health professionals. Or you could have antisocial personality disorder,
(34:22):
or you know, like there's one hundred different things that
you could say, well, I have this disorder and it
was a significant reason why I committed the crime. And
if the judge believes that, and you can present the
judge a treatment plan, saying, judge, instead of going through
(34:42):
the trial and you know, sending me to jail, will
you give me a chance at doing treatment, the judges
can then stop all of the criminal proceedings and divert
the person into a mental health treatment path. Now what
does that mean. It means that they're not in custody,
they're not in jail, they're released and they're released to
(35:04):
go see a counselor or in some cases, write a
book report or you know, get treatment from a doctor,
and then they check in with the judge over time,
and if the judge is ultimately satisfied that they've done
some treatment, the case is dismissed.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
The DSM has changed so much over the years. When
I first I think I've been around long enough where
I saw really the first edition and looked at that first,
especially in my studies when I started looking at the
academic side for criminology. And now it's amazing what the
DSM is going to look like in another fifty years.
But it's hard to even I mean, there was listed
(35:47):
paraphilic behavior in the original DSMS, and it seems to
me all about half of those have been taken out,
you know, or they've changed the wordage wordage where it
doesn't it isn't as you know, it's friendly, or it's
a nicer version to say, you know, some of the
paraphilic behaviors, that abnormal sexual behaviors that that some people have.
(36:09):
It's almost like it's became become a you're okay, I'm okay,
you have this you know, particular compulsion to do something
and oh that's okay, you know, well we can we
can do with it? You know, you can, you can
come out and exist in society. And well, they're finding
out when you have that compulsion, if you're when it
(36:34):
comes to especially sex drive, it's difficult to get fixed.
It's the studies aren't aren't aren't very good when it
talks about reabilitation to some of these serious sexual addictions.
They're they're hard to They're hard to fix the person
as a result.
Speaker 5 (36:53):
Yeah, I don't think they can't fix those people in
my opinion. But you know what we've seen with this
mental health law. The main offenses that we're seeing people
bring up our anxiety related disorders PTSD, and that can
be enough for them to hang their hook on this,
you know, divert me instead of prosecute me, just as
(37:15):
an aside. I mean, this tells you how like radical
these laws are in a way most people wouldn't expect.
We had a state trooper and highway patrolman in California
that was pulling people over and giving them tickets for
speeding at eighty or ninety miles an hour, and it
was a lie. They had it on camera and on
(37:36):
bodycam and dash cam. CHP ended up investigating this officer
and finding out she had done this many many times,
and then she would come to court and perjure herself
on the cases. Well, long story short, we ended up
filing purgury charges against her. Good for you all, Yeah,
for all of these cases where she lied and dragged
these people through the mud. And she got mental health
(37:59):
diversion because she said she had PTSD from her time
as a cop, and the judge went along with it,
and she didn't spend a day in jail and she'll
never be convicted. This is crazy.
Speaker 4 (38:11):
And talking about violating the trust of the public. Yeah,
when I hear stuff like that, it just, oh, it
just drives me insane.
Speaker 5 (38:19):
It's really outrageous. And then you mentioned at the outset
the Epstein loopholes. So that's referencing a case also in
California where a man was sexually abusing a minor. This
was down in the Central Valley and he was a
prominent figure. He also was abusing her, and the court
(38:43):
the way the charges were filed by the DA allowed
the defendant to get mental health diversion for this fact pattern.
And so we call it the Epstein loophole because when
you're putting your hands on young children, girls, boys, whatever,
with some malevolent purpose, whether it's sexual or otherwise. Like,
(39:05):
these people deserve no quarter. They should not be protected.
But the mental health diversion law is the Epstein loophole. Yeah,
and this guy is not doing any gail time. It's
a big, big story down in the Central Valley. So
you know, our position is, once again, the legislature should
(39:27):
close the loophole. Can't we all agree that if you
touch children you shouldn't be getting the benefit of mental
health diversion. That doesn't seem too crazy.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
What's the lowdown on this suspect? I mean, is there
anything come out that even makes it more? I mean
it's already horrible, but is there stuff in his background
that's even worse that people can imagine?
Speaker 5 (39:55):
Yeah, in that particular case, not really. I mean he
just he's a quasi public official who you know. The argument,
obviously is it looks really bad when you have somebody
like that benefiting from a law like this.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
Yeah. He was like a county commissioner or something like that.
Speaker 5 (40:13):
Yeah. Yeah, and so just it's stinks, it looks it
looks incestuous in that regard.
Speaker 4 (40:18):
And the relative to a judge I think.
Speaker 5 (40:22):
Yeah, relative to an elected official, and so the whole
thing stinks. And that's just again one of thousands of
cases around California. So this has risen to it's the
number one issue in California right now for law enforcement
is shutting this loophole. DA's across the state are united
and trying to get the legislature to narrow the scope
(40:43):
of crimes that can be considered, and we're facing big
resistance from the supermajority. The Democrats do not want to
shut this down for the same reasons that we talked about,
same donors, same ideological you know, because this mental health
diversion has been the single biggest get out of jail
(41:05):
free card anywhere in the country.
Speaker 4 (41:10):
Well, let's talk a moment. I want to give kudos
to the California District Attorneys Association because, Jeff, it seems
to me is you guys have had a united front
pretty much one hundred percent. Maybe there was a couple
prosecutors the public throughout that wasn't on board with you
all in the past, but the California District Attorneys and
(41:31):
this comprises of both sides of the aisle, have been
extremely good on bringing back justice to California, and I
just want to I think it's important for people to
know that the fifty eight counties that are in this state,
(41:53):
you have an incredible amount of people who are saying
all on board, all on board with this, And I
just want to commend your all work, the leadership that's
gone on, the communication that has been able to be
established among you all as public servants, and the fact
(42:14):
that you have stayed together on these important issues. And
I must say that I'm sure the sheriffs have been similar.
You know, of the counties that they have been united.
So now we're doubling that number up to show a
significant number of people I'm talking ninety five more than
likely sometimes close to one hundred percent are all in
(42:36):
the same marching page on these public safety questions. Right, Yeah, now,
that's right.
Speaker 5 (42:43):
The DA's and the sheriffs have been aligned for about
the last four years. We did have a few bad
actors in the elected DA group for a while. You know,
you had Georgia Gascon in Los Angeles and Chessa Bodine
and San Francisco. They threw them out, So you're right,
I mean, we are the last bastion of defense for
the public and victims. Because Newsom abandoned those people. The legislature,
(43:09):
the super majority abandoned those people. It's really the das
and the sheriffs and the police chiefs to a lesser extent,
they're pretty believe it or not, police chiefs are the
most political animal in the whole business.
Speaker 4 (43:21):
Oh they are. They're far more political than a share.
I mean, people say, why I have an elected sheriff.
The sheriff's position gives you in I'd say, the das
gives you the freedom to speak, you know, unlike anything else.
And I feel sometimes I feel bad for police. I
know some that are very outspoken, but they have enough
shine on their pants where they've been able to say,
(43:41):
I don't really care. What there You know, you want
to fire me, fire me? I don't, I don't care,
you know. So, you know some of them that's been
able to do it. But it's like the poor LA chief.
I think in the in the back of his mind,
he wants to say things that he can't say, but
he's he's got, you know, got his hands kind of tied.
(44:03):
Just think, good goodness, goodness, you know they have a
good DA. Now they're at least in La County they do.
Speaker 5 (44:09):
Yeah, Nathan Hockell is the real deal. But now you
nailed it, I mean, having been the sheriff, I mean
you know you're right. I mean you get elected once
every four years and then you're free to say whatever
you want, which you know is great. Whereas the police
chiefs every day their jobs on the line from the
city council and the pas and et cetera, et cetera.
So but yeah, the das and the sheriffs has certainly
(44:30):
been the leaders on public safety issues in California.
Speaker 4 (44:34):
So yeah, no, So where are lawmakers miscalculating? Again? If
it's I I struggle with getting my arms around the
electoral electorate, and that is here we are electing sheriffs
and DA's who have common sense public safety things that
(44:54):
they want to do from a policy point of view.
But then they go out and elect presentatives and senators
in the saints same counties that don't reflect the das
and the sheriffs, and I can't get marms around it.
I don't understand why that's. I know that you know,
(45:15):
from a criminal justice philosophy, generally sheriffs and DA's are
a little bit more law enforcement. You know, let's go
out and arrest people and hold people accountable within reason.
But I just it just doesn't make sense to me
how we kind of are in this really strange place
in California.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
Yeah, it's a great point, and I think my response
to that would be these laws that we're all talking
about today are complex. There's a lot of nuances and
criminal laws that you know, as career DA's and sheriffs
are not easy to figure out. And so when you
throw this stuff at the public in sound bites like
(45:56):
lawmakers do, and they you know, soften them up with
you know, well, this is I'm supporting the uh, you know,
give the second chances, give the youth second chances law.
Well that sounds really good. You're you know, Joe citizen
who lives in a white picket fence community in Morin.
But you know, there is complexities to the law that then,
(46:20):
as we know, often end up causing terrible consequences. So
I'm just looking at I'm convinced that most voters are
operating on limited information when they make decisions about which
candidate they are going to vote for, and that partisan
loyalty on either side can lead to disastrous choices, and
(46:45):
you know, you have to follow the money on these
candidates to see who's really pulling their strings.
Speaker 4 (46:53):
You know, I never thought about this, but you know,
I think you're absolutely right. Is the way that the
language has been in a lot of these amendments have
been very Oh that makes sense, Yeah, we ought to
do that. This is it's like the perfect language that
they've they've been able to research and say we're going
to have it this, and then nothing reflects that language
(47:15):
in the amendment. Right, Yeah, I think Proposition thirty six
was a perfect example of language that did not reflect
anything that was in the actual amendment.
Speaker 5 (47:27):
Prop forty seven, the original Yeah, I'm.
Speaker 4 (47:30):
Sorry, Yeah. Prop thirty six corrected it, so yeah, sorry,
right yeah.
Speaker 5 (47:34):
Prop forty seven. I mean that was when Kamala Harris
was our Attorney general when that one passed. And yeah,
they called it the safe Neighborhoods and Schools Acting. Yeah,
it was none of those things, but it sounded really good.
Speaker 4 (47:45):
Yeah. Yeah. So let me ask you some about some
prosecutorial constraints because this is concerning me now. Are prosecutors
being boxed out from charging decisions or leverage as a
result of these kinds of criminal justice laws that are
being inactive that's fought on well.
Speaker 5 (48:08):
The mental health diversion law is a great example of that.
It essentially takes the prosecutor's executive authority out of the
whole equation because when that person comes into that court
the courtroom the very first day, they can get out
of a prosecution and any penalty just by convincing the
(48:29):
judge that they've got a mental disorder of some kind
anxiety PTSD, and they can make a deal with the
judge for treatment. It's happening all over California every day,
a thousand times a day, and I can do nothing.
I can scream, I can pound the table, I can
come on shows and talk about it. But you're exactly right.
(48:53):
And the legislature and the people that are motives that
are pushing this ideology, they know that. And it's my
opinion that so many of these diversion laws are being
designed and pushed to eliminate the opposition to what they're
trying to accomplish, and the opposition.
Speaker 4 (49:13):
Is us, Yeah, is one of the reasons for this.
I support treatment. I know you support treatment, but there's
got to be a line somewhere and Prop forty seven
brought three important carrot and stick options to judges prosecutors,
that is, jail, mental health, mandatory mental health treatment, mandatory
(49:36):
drug treatment.
Speaker 5 (49:38):
Is this.
Speaker 4 (49:40):
Somehow a way to work around that where the Prop
forty seven doesn't actually get to fruition because you're just
not even charging as a result of mental illness, even
though you finally corrected the Prop forty seven from original
where they lost that discretion exactly.
Speaker 5 (50:03):
So Prop thirty six was the fix that we just
passed in California. Sorry I misspoken again, Now that's okay,
and that I was pivotal in that whole campaign and
we did. We got the Electric to agree with us
to change the law to bring back mandated treatment and accountability.
But to your point, what we're seeing now with mental
(50:25):
health diversion is that the defendants and the defense attorneys
are using that as an end around, yeah, the loophole.
So instead of having to go through a mandated treatment
program under Prop thirty six, which is very intensive in
supervision and requirements for successful completion, instead they're just showing
(50:46):
up on day one and saying, oh no, I don't
want that. I don't want to take that path. I
have a mental health issue, and I want to have
diversion under this mental health diversion law, and they're doing that.
Speaker 4 (50:59):
What do you think the recidivism rate is with this?
I know you can't. It's hard to figure this one out.
But there's a lot of people that are reoffending that
never get it's on constant diversion.
Speaker 5 (51:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (51:12):
I go to make the same argument if I have
anxiety because I'm bald, you know, and it hurts my
feelings when people say I'm bald, and so I have
a huge judge. I have a huge anxiety about that,
and it's a reason I shoplift or whatever it may be.
I could come back with that same reasoning every time
I commit a criminal.
Speaker 5 (51:34):
Act, and they do, and if you get a different
judge every time, they might buy it. Yeah, it's a
great question. We don't have that data. It's the one
thing about California that's very frustrating for practitioners is like me,
it's so big. It's almost forty million people, although it's
decreasing every year, you know, as people flee, but it's
(51:57):
so big. You got fifty eight counties. I mean, County
alone has nearly twelve million people. So there's no coordination
really between the counties on data collection, and so we
don't have solid numbers. And even at the state level,
the State of California is completely broken on collecting data,
which is no surprise, right. So I just know antidotally.
(52:20):
I know from local data that the mental health diversion
program has resulted in significant recidivism and people being killed
because they're out on mental health diversion and then they
kill somebody. I mean, that happens, big case, big headline,
and then the public moves on to the next thing.
But we don't have solid data showing the pattern over time,
(52:43):
not yet.
Speaker 4 (52:44):
Yeah, and Jeff, that's one of the reasons I just
don't trust the data anymore. People can say that right
now that we're going through a real slow period and criminality,
that the numbers are way off, and then I talk
to people like you and officers on the street. To me,
it's the fact that we have d CREM we have
less police on the streets. We have these laws that
(53:06):
you've mentioned that have been enacted, so nobody's going to
jail for anything. That doesn't stop criminality from occurring. But
it doesn't it lowers the numbers because and then you
have victim appathy on top of it. People give victimized
so much, they just they no longer call police when
they are victimized, if you know, they try to handle
themselves remove And I can't help but say that we
(53:32):
can't rely on public safety data on crime to be
the same that it was twenty five years ago because
our collection process has been massacred.
Speaker 5 (53:44):
It's definitely true in Yeah, that's definitely true in California.
I don't know about the rest of the country. I mean,
I would hope that some states do a better job.
Speaker 6 (53:52):
Well.
Speaker 4 (53:52):
I think there are some states that are smaller that
can get the data that they need. So I don't
think it's everywhere, but it certainly seems. I don't think
crime's down in blue blue states. I just I think
the data is so skewed because nobody is being arrested
for the and certainly not charged for the offenses that
(54:12):
are going on, and that that's used the national numbers.
Speaker 5 (54:17):
I totally agree with you on that, and I think
it's we'll see, you know what happens over the next
few years with the FBI under new leadership, But they're
actually I think doing a pretty good job of trying
to accurately report some of the violent crime data, so
but on a state by state basis, it's kind of
a mess yep.
Speaker 4 (54:39):
Jeff risy Yolo County District Attorney, thanks for coming on
the show. How can people follow your work?
Speaker 5 (54:44):
Thank you? Sheriff. Well, my website is www dot Yolo
DA dot org and I'd love for people to give
us follow.
Speaker 4 (54:54):
Yeah, do me a favor. Follow this man. He's wonderful
and he really gives information out to the PubL Blake
my friends. I'm retired Sheriff Curry Myers. This has been
America's criminologist and I will see you next week, same
bat time, same bat channel. And don't forget to check
out my work on substack. Doctor Curry Myers dot substack
dot com.
Speaker 1 (55:13):
Stay safe, cal steals suits for Cavil's wait shut us
dis trusting me as a fate.
Speaker 3 (55:26):
A man shadows a secret life. Doctor curry lyons, let's
do the scot. A male cosquem analogist coming to live
seals of the law in the anlysy cackles a crime
(55:46):
break in the same booth.
Speaker 1 (55:49):
Start the fame
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.