Mr. 594 Dan Satterberg wants 3-strikes felons to go free

You all remember RINO Dan Satterberg right? The guy who pushed 594 and claimed he needed it to prosecute criminals but then promptly turns around and drops charges and cuts deals on firearm charges even for notorious and infamous serial killers. If you don't remember this will jog your memory. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...alizing-law-abiding-gun-owners-300008656.html

Guess what he's up to now? He's joining a group of democrat lawmakers to push for bringing parole back to Washington and wants people serving life sentences under the 3 strikes law to be eligible for parole.

In Washington where we have sky-high recidivism rates and most crime is committed by a small group of repeat felons, this guy who punishes law abiding citizens with more laws now wants to unleash violent animals (who will almost certainly re-offend) upon the civilian population. You can read about it here:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-parole-proposal-gains-key-backing/

“It is a pretty big deal to remove collateral consequences of a felony conviction for people who have done their time, and paid their debt to society,” Satterberg said.

Click to expand...

If someone is in for 3 felonies then their debt is NEVER paid. Washington has one of the highest recidivism rates in the country and now he wants to make it higher right after making our ability to defend ourselves harder. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-12-Prison-recidivism-rates-hold-steady.htm

“The system designed to deter (inmates) from continued criminal behavior clearly is falling short,” according to the study by Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project, an arm of the non-profit’s public policy analysis group. “That is an unhappy reality, not just for offenders but for the safety of American communities.”
•Washington state reported a 31% jump during the same period.

Click to expand...

Feel free to contact his office and let them know how you feel about it:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/prosecutor/contact-us.aspx

Alpine said:

You all remember RINO Dan Satterberg right? The guy who pushed 594 and claimed he needed it to prosecute criminals but then promptly turns around and drops charges and cuts deals on firearm charges even for notorious and infamous serial killers. If you don't remember this will jog your memory. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...alizing-law-abiding-gun-owners-300008656.html
Guess what he's up to now? He's joining a group of democrat lawmakers to push for bringing parole back to Washington and wants people serving life sentences under the 3 strikes law to be eligible for parole.
In Washington where we have sky-high recidivism rates and most crime is committed by a small group of repeat felons, this guy who punishes law abiding citizens with more laws now wants to unleash violent animals (who will almost certainly re-offend) upon the civilian population. You can read about it here:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-parole-proposal-gains-key-backing/
If someone is in for 3 felonies then their debt is NEVER paid. Washington has one of the highest recidivism rates in the country and now he wants to make it higher right after making our ability to defend ourselves harder. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-12-Prison-recidivism-rates-hold-steady.htm
Feel free to contact his office and let them know how you feel about it:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/prosecutor/contact-us.aspx

Click to expand...

the bill is concerned about:

quote: It would allow people sentenced to life in prison under the state’s three-strikes law to petition for early release after serving 20 years, provided the offender had not been convicted of a sex offense or aggravated first-degree murder.
unquote http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-parole-proposal-gains-key-backing/

now your statements are kinda harsh considering there were citizens sentenced to life under the 3 strikes for drug possession!! this was under the day when it was thought incarceration was beneficial or the the beginning of the for profit prison complex, which by the way is thriving.

ipse

solus said:

the bill is concerned about:

quote: It would allow people sentenced to life in prison under the state’s three-strikes law to petition for early release after serving 20 years, provided the offender had not been convicted of a sex offense or aggravated first-degree murder.
unquote http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-parole-proposal-gains-key-backing/

now your statements are kinda harsh considering there were citizens sentenced to life under the 3 strikes for drug possession!! this was under the day when it was thought incarceration was beneficial or the the beginning of the for profit prison complex, which by the way is thriving.

ipse

Click to expand...

Normally I'd ignore you but what you said is so jaw-dropping absurd and I saw it when I was logged out so my filter didn't block it, I'll say this:

Aggravated first degree murder would be exempt, but other types of murder convictions, often achieved through plea deals, would not be. Think about that.

Yes, the drug offenders shouldn't be in for life, and we should probably decriminalize drug offenses in general and save prison for violent offenders, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any proposal that allows multiple-2nd or 3rd degree murders or batterers out when they should be in for life is destructive to public safety.

You want to get drug offenders out of life sentences? Fine, support a bill just for that. Don't put it in with a bill that lets multiple-conviction 2nd degree murder felons killers out on parole.

and since you are ignoring me...but I shall continue for the sake of presenting a 'balanced' and unemotionally biased perspective on the subject in case others might be interested.

you do realize this bill does not just open the gate of the cell block to let an individual out on parole but rather the individual's 'record' while in prison would be reviewed by, quote: A newly constituted “second look review board” would hear those petitions. unquote, then the individual would be considered for parole?

from my perspective the cost savings would be enormous especially quote: ...prison spending that now costs states $52 billion annually. unquote. to those quote: ...older inmates because they are generally considered at low risk to reoffend, and their medical costs in prison are high. unquote.

finally, quote: He speculated that such criticism might be tempered by initially reviewing three-strikers with the least serious offenses — those, for example, convicted of second-degree robbery, which doesn’t involve physical harm unquote.

information pulled from initially quoted Seattle Times http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-parole-proposal-gains-key-backing/ & http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-12-Prison-recidivism-rates-hold-steady.htm and not the apparently emotionally charged CCRKBA cite contained in the OP's initial posting.

bottom line the 3 strikes didn't work, is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars so why not weed out those out of prison who no longer provide a threat to their community. yes, it is acknowledged, the community may have to reallocate savings back into care for those individuals since they have been out of society's loop but that is a different discussion at hand vice the SELECTIVE release of prisoners after 20 years of incarceration.

ipse

Methinks the problem is the courts conveniently allowing lifetime loss of rights for those who are released from prison.

How quick would the bleeding hearts be to release from prison dangerous criminals if, within a short time of their release (say less than a year), they had all of their rights restored including RKBA, freedom of association, freedom to live where they want, right to privacy, etc?

As is, the law says felons can't own a gun. Sexual predators might be required to register their address on some State-maintained list and are not supposed to live too close to schools or day care centers. Convicts can spend years on parole during which time they are not allowed to associate with anyone else with a serious criminal record. Parolees can be searched more easily than can non-convicts. And so some folks think that it is ok to release dangerous convicts from prison. Well, lacking real supervision, all of the rules and limitations are just so much honor system and feel good measures.

If the guy can be trusted to carry a gun in your neighborhood, Mr. Bleeding Heart, by all means release him. He doesn't belong in prison.

But if you don't trust his rehabilitation and reformation sufficiently to respect all of his constitutional rights, you better not be turning him lose on decent society.

Two more semi-related thoughts:

1-While I'm not big on lifetime sentences for simple drug possession/use, if someone knows he is facing a lifetime sentence for getting popped with drugs, but he continues to use or deal drugs anyway, that person will probably do anything to get and use his drugs including inflicting all kinds of violence on innocent persons. Maybe we ought to think twice before releasing such persons too quickly.

2-This is one problem with those who claim to favor life without parole rather than capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes. There is simply no way to assure that some future legislature doesn't break that deal and start releasing folks who were never supposed to be released.

Charles

Alpine said:

Normally I'd ignore you but what you said is so jaw-dropping absurd and I saw it when I was logged out so my filter didn't block it, I'll say this:

Aggravated first degree murder would be exempt, but other types of murder convictions, often achieved through plea deals, would not be. Think about that.

Yes, the drug offenders shouldn't be in for life, and we should probably decriminalize drug offenses in general and save prison for violent offenders, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any proposal that allows multiple-2nd or 3rd degree murders or batterers out when they should be in for life is destructive to public safety.

You want to get drug offenders out of life sentences? Fine, support a bill just for that. Don't put it in with a bill that lets multiple-conviction 2nd degree murder felons killers out on parole.

Click to expand...

You are the one causing jaws to drop here.

As an example of a 'murderer' that probably doesn't deserve to be in prison (though admittedly this is in Texas) there were two cases where a man was awakened out of a sound sleep by people smashing his door in in the middle of the night. Under Texas law, anyone so much as approaching a house at night by stealth (let alone kicking down doors) is presumed to be there for unlawful and violent purposes, justifying a homeowner to simply open fire. While still half asleep, both men grabbed their guns and shot at the intruders. In both incidents, the intruders proved to be police officers executing a no-knock search warrant. Both men were captured alive but both killed an officer before they realized they were shooting at police and surrendered. One man was white and the other black. The white man has not been charged, the black man has been charged with first degree murder and is almost certain to be convicted since there is no self-defense plea permitted in a premeditated murder trial.

This provides an example of what will likely soon be a convicted murderer who would deserve to be let go early, if he belonged in prison at all.

difdi, that is absolutely a horrendous and egregious miscarriage of justice. i find it interesting the white individual had marijuana on site and the black individual, tho a confidential informant stated the black individual was dealing in coke out of his house, didn't have any substances on site.

interestingly, quote: The ACLU study found that 62 percent of SWAT deployments today are for doing drug raids. The study also found that in around half of SWAT deployments for drug offenses, no contraband is found at all. They (SWAT- text added for clarification) were set up in the late 1960s for extreme scenarios like active shooters and hostage situations. Yet 85 percent of SWAT deployments today are for "choice-driven raids on people's private residences," Peter Kraska, an Eastern Kentucky University researcher who studies tactical policing, testified in a recent Senate hearing. unquote.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/texas-no-knock-swat-raid

difdi, thanks for pointing out this story.

ipse

Difdi said:

You are the one causing jaws to drop here.

As an example of a 'murderer' that probably doesn't deserve to be in prison (though admittedly this is in Texas) there were two cases where a man was awakened out of a sound sleep by people smashing his door in in the middle of the night. Under Texas law, anyone so much as approaching a house at night by stealth (let alone kicking down doors) is presumed to be there for unlawful and violent purposes, justifying a homeowner to simply open fire. While still half asleep, both men grabbed their guns and shot at the intruders. In both incidents, the intruders proved to be police officers executing a no-knock search warrant. Both men were captured alive but both killed an officer before they realized they were shooting at police and surrendered. One man was white and the other black. The white man has not been charged, the black man has been charged with first degree murder and is almost certain to be convicted since there is no self-defense plea permitted in a premeditated murder trial.

This provides an example of what will likely soon be a convicted murderer who would deserve to be let go early, if he belonged in prison at all.

Click to expand...

What you are describing are flaws in the investigation/trial/conviction process, not the overall concept of keeping repeat, violent felons locked up. If you want to address wrongful investigations and trials and the processes surrounding then do so, but don't empty out prisons because you think that's a fair way to "balance" that...

We shouldn't water down sentences for violent repeat felonies to "counteract" the possibility of bad/wrongful convictions, we should fix the problem directly and address bad/wrong convictions!

Also the story you cited deals with one conviction. 3 Strikes is 3 convictions...

Did a little digging, it appears those pleaders for felons are full of it, our 3 strikes law does not apply to drug crimes.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2010/11/17/what-crimes-count-toward-the-three-strikes-law/

Q: I see people who have more than three felonies in the news. Why is that? Doesn’t Washington have a three-strikes law?

A: Washington does have a three-strikes law, but not all felony crimes counts as strikes.

The law is actually called the persistent offender law, and the definition is outlined in section 9.94A.030 of the Revised Code of Washington.

A persistent offender is defined as someone who:


(ii) Has, before the commission of the offense under (a) of this subsection, been convicted as an offender on at least two separate occasions, whether in this state or elsewhere, of felonies that under the laws of this state would be considered most serious offenses and would be included in the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525; provided that of the two or more previous convictions, at least one conviction must have occurred before the commission of any of the other most serious offenses for which the offender was previously convicted; or

(b)(i) Has been convicted of: (A) Rape in the first degree, rape of a child in the first degree, child molestation in the first degree, rape in the second degree, rape of a child in the second degree, or indecent liberties by forcible compulsion; (B) any of the following offenses with a finding of sexual motivation: Murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, homicide by abuse, kidnapping in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, assault of a child in the first degree, assault of a child in the second degree, or burglary in the first degree; or (C) an attempt to commit any crime listed in this subsection (36)(b)(i); and

(ii) Has, before the commission of the offense under (b)(i) of this subsection, been convicted as an offender on at least one occasion, whether in this state or elsewhere, of an offense listed in (b)(i) of this subsection or any federal or out-of-state offense or offense under prior Washington law that is comparable to the offenses listed in (b)(i) of this subsection. A conviction for rape of a child in the first degree constitutes a conviction under (b)(i) of this subsection only when the offender was sixteen years of age or older when the offender committed the offense. A conviction for rape of a child in the second degree constitutes a conviction under (b)(i) of this subsection only when the offender was eighteen years of age or older when the offender committed the offense.

Click to expand...

Should have known the bleeding heart pleaders were full of it...

quote: An article in the San Francisco Chronicle advocated vast reforms to the three strikes law, citing that many of those sentenced to life in prison did not commit violent crimes, but minor ones, for their third offense, and that no civilized society should imprison its citizens for such lengths for petty crimes, regardless of past offenses.

A law professor at a California-based university found that reports that declared that the three strikes laws in the state led to decreased crime rates were incorrect. His new study revealed that the law was almost completely ineffective in fighting violent crime, unquote http://online.ccj.pdx.edu/resources/news-articles/factors-that-affect-criminal-behavior/

quote: The Three Strikes Law is not without fault and unfortunately human fault is tremendous. The law was meant to punish violent felons but it is has been largely overused. There are horror stories about people doing life in prison for stealing a pair of socks, or for stealing pizza. As a matter of fact the law has changed dramatically in California and other states because there were literally thousands of cases where the law had been misused.
unquote http://nlcatp.org/crucial-pros-and-cons-of-three-strikes-law/


so further evidence those sentenced to life in prison did not commit violent crimes but minor offenses and the law was mis/over used so our society, particularly WA state is trying to rectify some of the issue(s).

ipse

Alpine said:

Did a little digging, it appears those pleaders for felons are full of it, our 3 strikes law does not apply to drug crimes.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2010/11/17/what-crimes-count-toward-the-three-strikes-law/



Should have known the bleeding heart pleaders were full of it...

Click to expand...

hummm, should have looked at the specific statutes alpine as i find it quite interesting your 2010 'blog' left out para (a)(1) which states...

quote:
(a)(i) Has been convicted in this state of any felony considered a most serious offense;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.030

further, as you posted (a)(ii) talks about quote: ... most serious offenses and would be included in the offender score under RCW 9.94A.525; .... unquote.

now,
quote
9.94A.525's statute
(e)...If the present conviction is felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug....felony physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug (RCW 46.61.504(6)) shall always be included in the offender score.

(13) If the present conviction is for manufacture of methamphetamine....If the present conviction is for a drug offense and the offender has a criminal history that includes a sex offense or serious violent offense....

(16) If the present conviction is for Burglary 2 or residential burglary....

(20) If the present conviction is for Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Possession of a Stolen Vehicle, Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Permission 1, or Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Permission 2....

(21) If the present conviction is for a felony domestic violence offense where domestic violence as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 was plead and proven....
(21)(a) ...where domestic violence as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 was plead and proven after August 1, 2011, for the following offenses: A violation of a no contact order that is a felony offense, a violation of a protection order that is a felony offense, a felony domestic violence harassment offense, a felony domestic violence stalking offense, a domestic violence Burglary 1 offense, a domestic violence Kidnapping 1 offense, a domestic violence Kidnapping 2 offense, a domestic violence unlawful imprisonment offense, a domestic violence Robbery 1 offense, a domestic violence Robbery 2 offense, a domestic violence Assault 1 offense, a domestic violence Assault 2 offense, a domestic violence Assault 3 offense, a domestic violence Arson1 offense, or a a domestic violence Arson 2 offense;

(21)(c) ...adult prior conviction for a repetitive domestic violence offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030, where domestic violence as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 was plead and proven after August 1, 2011.
unquote. https://www.courts.wa.gov/sra/index...63016-031&folder=2015&sectionid=072415_063016

i find it interesting your blog did not go into detail about the felony dui driving, felony or repetitive or the gaggle in 21a of DV offenses, burglry, oh ya drug offenses, thief of a motorhome, alpine since apparently the statutes seem to say during the judicial scoring 'other offenses' could add up quite quickly leading to a label of 'serious offenses' as outlined in the paragraph your blog failed to list...

these offenses could precipitate someone spending the rest of their life in prison under three strikes your out.

ipse

forgive the length but just located this tidbit...http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.030
(33) "Most serious offense" means any of the following felonies or a felony attempt to commit any of the following felonies:
(a) Any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or criminal solicitation of or criminal conspiracy to commit a class A felony;
(t) Any other felony with a deadly weapon verdict under RCW 9.94A.825;

NavyLCDR said:

But at least with the I-594 law in place we can sleep easy at night knowing that none of these released felons will ever have a gun in their hands....oh, wait - their husband/wife/parent/child could gift them a firearm. We obviously need to close that loophole.

/sarcasm

Click to expand...

ipse

What is wrong with those whom are not locked up, being armed?

The three strike rule only helps private prisons and guard unions.

There is supposedly a diet that has kept convicts from re-offending. I wish I could find that source again. I remember it was clean, organic, and vegan (?) food.

But the moron wanted to create more felons (technically many of us gun owners in Washington are now unconvicted felons) so he should be put into a cage. Or better still tarred and feathered.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Freedom1Man said:

What is wrong with those whom are not locked up, being armed?

The three strike rule only helps private prisons and guard unions.

There is supposedly a diet that has kept convicts from re-offending. I wish I could find that source again. I remember it was clean, organic, and vegan (?) food.

But the moron wanted to create more felons (technically many of us gun owners in Washington are now unconvicted felons) so he should be put into a cage. Or better still tarred and feathered.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Imagine a world without ANY gun control laws because we keep 80%+ of the people who commit firearm crime locked up permanently...

Imagine all firearm murder lower than any type of violent death. That's what we could achieve if we stopped releasing violent animals who have made the mental calculation that it's worth it to prey on others.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17


The choice is yours. Remember that the next time a legislative or ballot initiative on gun control is passed based on reported criminal statistics and the people who help those criminals stay loose to prey upon society both in terms of lives and property lost, but also in the long term, freedom lost due to collective anxiety.

Alpine said:

Imagine a world without ANY gun control laws because we keep 80%+ of the people who commit firearm crime locked up permanently...
Imagine all firearm murder lower than any type of violent death. That's what we could achieve if we stopped releasing violent animals who have made the mental calculation that it's worth it to prey on others.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17
The choice is yours. Remember that the next time a legislative or ballot initiative on gun control is passed based on reported criminal statistics and the people who help those criminals stay loose to prey upon society both in terms of lives and property lost, but also in the long term, freedom lost due to collective anxiety.

Click to expand...

to quote you alpine, the choice is yours to ensure you check out the currency and data of the cite you plop in the middle of your post while trying to make a point:
quote from the first page of the cite,

quote:
The latest study estimated the recidivism patterns of about 400,000 persons released from state prisons in 30 states in 2005. unquote.


you go to the first link, Recidivism Survey of Felons on Probation, and get this:
quote Data Collection: Recidivism Survey Of Felons On ProbationStatus: Inactive
Frequency: 1986
Latest data available: 1986-1989

why on earth did you switch to this rambling commentary about locking up gun violators from your rant on a bill initiative for the review and possible release of those sentenced to life is beyond me.

the new characterization of those prisoners as violent animals is a nice unemotional touch as well and should assist your efforts tremendously.

ipse

So far the examples given here are either hypothetical or are from another state (Texas).

I challenge anyone who opposes WA's 3 Strikes Law to find ONE single example of it HERE in this state where it has been used to lock up a completely non-violent offender for life.

Alpine said:

So far the examples given here are either hypothetical or are from another state (Texas).

I challenge anyone who opposes WA's 3 Strikes Law to find ONE single example of it HERE in this state where it has been used to lock up a completely non-violent offender for life.

Click to expand...

you last cite was so beneficial to your cause you sure you wish to play tit for tat further?

http://www.caa.wa.gov/documents/3strikes_leg_brief.pdf

quote:

unarmed, no-injury robbery 2...sentenced to 777 years, 77 months, and 77 days.

good datum in the whole document.

unquote.

http://www.columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/3Strikes.pdf

document on savings to state.

quote: There are a variety of social factors, such as age, education level, presence of mental illness, history of substance abuse, and homelessness, that correlate with criminal behavior, including repeat criminal behavior. unquote.



https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165369.pdf

you mentioned CA, here is a document comparing figure 1.1: CA & WA 3 strikes criteria. also shows all states 3 strikes criteria.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/three-strikes-law.htm

quote Many repeat robbers, for example, have been sentenced to life in prison in Washington, even though their crimes were not violent. unquote see my first cite.

ipse

Robbery 2 is still violent despite what the absurd attempt to paint that felon's record says:

9A.56.180 << 9A.56.190 >> 9A.56.200

RCW 9A.56.190
Robbery—Definition.
A person commits robbery when he or she unlawfully takes personal property from the person of another or in his or her presence against his or her will by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury to that person or his or her property or the person or property of anyone. Such force or fear must be used to obtain or retain possession of the property, or to prevent or overcome resistance to the taking; in either of which cases the degree of force is immaterial. Such taking constitutes robbery whenever it appears that, although the taking was fully completed without the knowledge of the person from whom taken, such knowledge was prevented by the use of force or fear.

Click to expand...

Threatening violence to steal from someone is almost as bad as actually using violence. You can never be sure that repeat felons like this will never make good on those threats.

you would stick you hand in the wound wouldn't you...

i wish you well in your emotionally biased lopsided crusade...

as eye95 used to say...

ipse