Sacramento County DA Posting Opposition to Release of Non-Violent Second Strikers

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

SACRAMENTO--

The point of incarceration is for a debt to be paid to society for a crime committed against it.

"Now that victim's given a promise by this community that that person would get 12 years, yet it's all been undone and they get out in 50 percent of the time and that's disturbing to me," Sacramento County District Attorney Ann Marie Schubert said.

So disturbing, that Schubert is posting names of so-called "non-violent second strikers" cleared for early release and opposition to each such case on her website.

"(Early release) is just a mechanism to reduce the prison population," said Schubert.

She says the reduction quotas federal courts told California it needed to meet have actually been exceeded and now the continual release of offenders is compromising public safety.

The "non-violent" determination only takes into account a person's latest crime, not the kidnappings or shootings that may be in an offender's past, and what the public considers violent can be very different than what the law says it is.

"Legally, non-violent may mean somebody that's committed domestic violence, to somebody that's committed an assault with a deadly weapon. They may have a long record," Schubert said.

She just wants the public to be informed about who is returning to their communities.

When it comes to taking her growing concern about public safety directly to the governor, she says she's never had a conversation with him.

"But the message to him from this office, let's make sure we're telling the public the people being released have long criminal histories that can present a public safety risk," Schubert said.

FOX40 asked the governor's office for some reaction to Schubert's concerns, but didn't hear back.

Representatives from the state Department of Corrections wanted to stress that the parole determination was made by the federal court and that since the case is ongoing, the state is not at liberty to disregard any provisions in it.