Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/152130
6A Daily News – Thursday, August 15, 2013 Opinion What causes the recidivism DAILY NEWS RED BLUFF TEHAMA COUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U NTY S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes letters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submitted will be considered for publication. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong community newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehicles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its communities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the residents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 During my time as an investigator for the California Department of Corrections, I had the opportunity to conduct many interviews with criminals wishing to debrief from their prospective gangs. As a debriefer, I have written numerous autobiographies of high profile criminals who were trying to separate themselves from their current life style. During these interviews I was able to obtain a lot of facts in regards to their social structure and what made them end up back in prison. A lot of individuals said they ended up back in prison because of the early failures that were forced upon them during their reentry into society. Most individuals who have been incarcerated, say the same thing, I am never coming back. This is usually based on the fact that they have lost their freedom, their ability to do as they want, when they want, and the constant fear their environment places on them while incarcerated. Most people to include criminals, who find themselves in trouble of some sort, always, say I will never do that again or I will never go back to prison. It is human nature not to want to make the same mistake twice that might jeopardize their future. Most come out of incarceration with full intentions of doing the right thing for once in their life, to uphold all the promises they made to themselves, as well as their family members. Unfortunately upon their release society is not playing by the same rules they are. The first month of a newly released criminal is very crucial to their success of being a contributing member to society. The number one failure they encounter upon release is their inability to get a job. As all of you know there is no longer such a thing as privacy of personal information. Employers can pay to join web sites on the internet that will give them any and all information needed to conduct background checks for a price. Most job applications today require you to put down whether or not you have committed a felony or even if you have a DUI on your driving record. Even though a lot of businesses say they are an equal opportunity employer, I believe this has become more of a slogan in this state than an actual reality. But I have to admit it is understandable in a employers prospective, they do not want to hire anyone who may bring them problems down the road. But when a criminal cannot get a job, and their money runs mole, you can't be flat footed, or out, they eventually give up fight- you can't have a pre-existent medical condition, ing the uphill battle and who knows. go back to what they The state spends know best, which is Guest View hundreds of thousands committing crime. Is Weldon of dollars each year of this an excuse for the tax payer money on things they have done rehabilitation, do I wrong to ruin their believe rehabilitation lives? No, not at all. We works? No! Rehabilitaare all held accountable for the decisions we make in life. tion has to start with the individual In the old days the employers themselves, not some classroom. use to hire a person based on But I am not for spending $50,000 their interview. After the inter- a year on a guy who keeps going view you either did or did not get back to crime because he cannot the job based on whether the get a job based on his background. employer was willing to take a I understand it?s a tough decision chance on you. Getting a job for employers to make and there today is a lot more impersonal, may be certain categories of crimgetting that interview is based on inals they may not want working what they find in your back- in their business environment, which should stand out on a background. When it comes to not hiring ground check. But early release has been the people with DUIs, this is the business' insurance policy influ- big talk of politicians for the last encing whom they can, and can- two years and now it is upon us. not hire. It seems more and more It is not a maybe anymore, Sacrainsurance companies are getting mento has tried every angle to involved in putting stipulations stall and rebut the federal order to on businesses, which they must down size the prison system. We follow to remain insured. Stipu- might as well face it these guys lations like drug testing of are coming back to our commuemployees. Recently I saw a job nities, it might be better to have add on the Internet, that was bas- them working than committing ing qualification of employment crimes to support themselves. on drug and nicotine testing. Weldon Shaw lives in Corning. What's next? You can't have a Shaw Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Dan Logue, 1550 Humboldt Road, Ste. 4, Chico, CA 95928, 530-895-4217 STATE SENATOR — Jim Nielsen, 2635 Forest Ave., Ste. 110, Chico, CA 95928, (530) 879-7424, senator.nielsen@senate.ca.gov GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 5583160; E-mail: governor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Doug LaMalfa 506 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, 202-2253076. U.S. SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 3930710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (510) 286-8537. Fax (202) 224-0454. Commentary Atmosphere of unconstitutionality WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and redlines is floundering. And at last week's news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality. Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act, he said: "I didn't simply choose to" ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, "this was in consultation with businesses." He continued: "In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law ... it looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let's make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so." Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: "Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the 'executive authority' to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?" The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: Brevity. Because there is no such authority. Obama's explanation began with an irrelevancy: He consulted with businesses before disregarding his constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That duty does not lapse when a president decides Washington's "political environment" is not "normal." When was it "normal"? The 1850s? The 1950s? Washington has been the nation's capital for 213 years; Obama has been here less than nine years. Even if he understood "normal" political environments here, the Constitution is not suspended when a president decides the "environment" is abnormal. Neither does the Constitution confer on presidents the power to rewrite laws if they decide the change is a "tweak" not involving the law's "essence." Anyway, the employer mandate is essential to the ACA. Twenty-three days before his news conference, the House voted 264-161, with 35 Democrats in the majority, for the rule of law -- for, that is, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act. It would have done lawfully what Obama did by ukase. He threat- validated critics who say the ened to veto this use of legisla- ACA cannot be implemented as written. What does tion to alter a law. The not embarrass him is White House called it his complicity in "unnecessary," presumeffectively rewriting ably because he has an the ACA for the uncircumscribed "execfinancial advantage utive authority" to alter of self-dealing memlaws. bers of Congress and In a 1977 interview their staffs. with Richard Nixon, The ACA says David Frost asked: "So, members of Conwhat in a sense you're gress (annual saying is that there are salaries: $174,000) certain situations ... and their staffs (thouwhere the president can decide that it's in the George F. sands making more than $100,000) must best interests of the participate in the nation ... and do somelaw's insurance thing illegal?" Nixon: "Well, when the pres- exchanges. It does not say that ident does it, that means that it when this change goes into effect, the current federal subis not illegal." sidy for this affluent cohort -Frost: "By definition." up to 75 percent of the premiNixon: "Exactly, exactly." Nixon's claim, although con- um's cost, perhaps $10,000 for -should be stitutionally grotesque, was less families so than the claim implicit in unchanged. When Congress awakened to Obama's actions regarding the ACA. Nixon's claim was con- what it enacted, it panicked: fined to matters of national This could cause a flight of talsecurity or (he said to Frost) "a ent, making Congress less wonthreat to internal peace and derful. So Obama directed the order of significant magnitude." Office of Personnel ManageObama's audacity is more spa- ment, which has no power to do cious; it encompasses a right to this, to authorize for the politidisregard any portion of any cal class special subsidies law pertaining to any subject at unavailable for less privileged any time when the political and less affluent citizens. If the president does it, it's "environment" is difficult. Obama should be embar- legal? "Exactly, exactly." rassed that, by ignoring the George Will's email address legal requirement concerning the employer mandate, he has is georgewill@washpost.com. Will