![]() ![]() Who participated in the 2017-18 cohort programs and who did not (i.e.They have yet to share it with CBS Sacramento or the CDCR's own contracted researchers. The CDCR does have access to detailed current programming data.The CDCR's recidivism reports analyze three-year recidivism rates, so there is naturally a three-year delay in recidivism data.Recidivism has largely held steady since 2012, hovering between 44.6%-46.1%.The data is based on inmates who were released between June 2017-18, which were the first cohort to receive enhanced early release credits under Prop 57.Those who did earn programming credits were 1.6% less likely to be convicted of a new crime within three years of release.The CDCR's most recent data reveals that roughly half of the inmates who were released during the 2017-18 fiscal year participated in rehabilitation and other in-prison programming before release.Please click here to read the growing list of viewer questions at the bottom of the page. We're now bringing our unanswered questions to lawmakers and asking: Who can force the CDCR to release the crucial public safety information that is needed to evaluate California's landmark prison reform laws? Please click here to add your questions to the list. Many, if not all of them, would also like the data and the answers we've been working to get. While the agency has now commissioned a third-party nonprofit to evaluate its rehabilitation programming, we've learned that the CDCR is providing those contracted researchers with outdated data as well.ĬBS Sacramento has conducted dozens of interviews with former inmates, crime victims, prosecutors, public defenders, lawmakers, prison reform advocates, victim advocates, criminal data researchers, and CDCR insiders. In addition to being dated, the report lacks critical information to effectively analyze the impact of the CDCR's rehabilitation programs. The Questionsįor more than a year, CBS Sacramento has been working to answer the question: "Are prison reform laws in California leading to more rehabilitation and fewer felons reoffending after release?" Unfortunately, we still don't know because, as we've learned, the state isn't analyzing, or won't release, crucial data.Īfter years of delay, the Department of Corrections finally released its 2017-18 recidivism report, which leaves more questions than answers. However, the report fails to answer basic questions and is based on data that is more than five years old. Critics say the findings call into question the effectiveness of the programs, which cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually (in addition to the cost of the new crimes). The report also finds that those who do participate in in-prison rehabilitation are only 1.6% less likely to be convicted of new crimes after release. That's according to a report that CDCR recently released following repeated records requests from CBS Sacramento. Opposing counsel may object to certain questions asked on cross-examination if the questions violate the state's laws on evidence or if they relate to matters not discussed during direct examination.SACRAMENTO - The state's prison system is run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), but it turns out that only about half of the state's inmates are actually participating in rehabilitation and other programs in prison. Moral turpitude (dishonesty), since this is relevant to their credibility. ![]() Witnesses may be asked if they have been convicted of a felony or a crime involving The attorney might do this by trying to show prejudice or bias in the witness, such as his or her relationship or friendship with one of the parties, or his or her interest in the outcome of the case. Impeach in this sense means to question or reduce the credibility of the witness or evidence. On cross-examination, the attorney might try to question the witness's ability to identify or recollect or try to impeach the witness or the evidence. Hostile witness (a witness whose relationship to the lawyers client is such that his testimony is likely to be prejudicial) on direct examination, the lawyer can ask leading questions as on cross-examination. Another reason for allowing leading questions is that the witness is usually being questioned by the lawyer who did not originally call him or her, so it is likely that the witness will resist any suggestion that is not true. Leading questions may be asked during cross-examination, since the purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of statements made during direct examination. Cross-examination is generally limited to questioning only on matters that were raised during direct examination. ![]() When the lawyer for the plaintiff or the government has finished questioning a witness, the lawyer for the defendant may then cross-examine the witness. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |