Dems & GOP looks to flood streets with criminals

Revolving Door "Justice"

• California has already released tens of thousands of criminals from prison to prey on helpless citizens.
• Now screaming "fairness" the liberal retards want to release arrested criminals right back on the streets without any bail to ensure they will show up to court.

(NPR)  -  The national effort to get states to move away from a bail system based on money — something detractors call unjust and antiquated — got a big boost this week: A yearlong study backed by California's chief justice recommended money bail be abolished and replaced with a system that includes robust safety assessments and expanded pretrial services.

Calling the state's commercial bail system "unsafe and unfair," a working group created by California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Republican) argues that the state's bail system bases a defendant's liberty too much on his or her finances, rather than an assessment of whether the defendant is a flight or safety risk.

"Therein lies the fundamental fairness issue of: Is there a two-tier justice system that is operating here?" asks Martin Hoshino, who heads the Judicial Council of California, which is an advisory and policymaking council of the state's courts.

"These recommendations reflect the overwhelming belief that wealth-based justice is not justice at all," says Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, who along with state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, co-authored a bill proposing big changes to cash bail.

The report recommends a phaseout of a money-based bail system, replacing it with a risk-based pretrial assessment that uses a computer algorithm and judicial discretion; expansion of preventive detention for the most dangerous cases; and expansion of pretrial services in every county. The latter could include monitoring compliance with a defendants' release conditions, anger management counseling and reminders to people to show up on their court date.

Read More . . . .

Liquefying Corpses Legalized by Democrats

A Democrat Priority

(Inverse)  -  California Governor Jerry Brown passed AB 967, an innocuously named bill for a not-so-innocuous law. The bill, proposed by assembly member Todd Gloria, a San Diego democrat, will make it legal for Californians to liquefy their corpses after death in a bath of caustic juice.

The process, referred to as water cremation (or aquamation, resomation, bio-cremation, or flameless cremation), has been proposed as a much more environmentally friendly way to dispose of a body after death. The bill is sponsored by Qico, Inc., a “sustainable cremation” company that specializes in this form of corpse disposal, and it will go into effect by at least July 1, 2020.

“A lot of people view water creation as a more respectful option and we’re glad a lot of people will be able to have it,” Jack Ingraham, the CEO of Qico, tells Inverse. “We think this is a trend for the future. I think within 10 years to 20 years, cremation will be thought of as a water-based process, and the entire flame process will be replaced.”

Unfortunately, no actual liquid is returned to the survivors, only the remaining calcium, or the bones. “These are crushed into the ashes returned to the family,” Ingraham says, who adds that the process also results in about 20-30 percent more “ashes” being returned to the family. So while you can’t drink Uncle Frank, you will get more of his ashes.

These days, the only mainstream options available are burial or cremation, both of which aren’t especially green; coffins take up a lot of valuable space and are made of slowly biodegrading wood, and cremation requires reaching temperatures of up to 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, which isn’t exactly energy efficient. Then there’s the option of sending a dead body to space in a rocket, which is not green, for obvious reasons.

Aquamation, in contrast, dissolves a body, DNA and all, in a vat of liquid into a relatively unharmful solution of slightly alkaline water that can be neutralized and returned to the Earth. California is the latest state to make the procedure legal, joining 14 others.

Read More . . . .

The next logical step

1984 - One year in jail for saying "she" instead of "he"

Democrats Openly Piss on

the 1st Amendment

(Fox News)  -  California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law. 

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation last week. 

The sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, has argued adamantly that nobody is going to be criminally prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun. 

“It’s just more scare tactics by people who oppose all LGBT civil rights and protections,” he said in a statement last month. 

But the language seemingly allows for the possibility, however remote. 

The bill itself is aimed at protecting transgender and other LGBT individuals in hospitals, retirement homes and assisted living facilities. The bill would ensure those facilities accommodate transgender people and their needs, including letting them decide which gender-specific bathroom they prefer to use. 

"It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status," the bill reads.

Among the unlawful actions are “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”

The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both.

One opponent of the law, the California Family Council's Greg Burt, slammed the measure when the bill was in its early stages.  

“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” he said to the California Assembly Judiciary Committee in August, according to CBN News. 

Read More . . . .