Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Commission Majority Blocks Criminal Justice and Fiscal Reforms

Posted by Media Release

This time by misrepresenting Ohio law… Following last Tuesday’s defeat of the Super-Sized Jail Tax, the Commission majority and Sheriff Leis have shown every inclination to retaliate against the voters for rejecting their tax, and to resist all attempts at fiscal and criminal justice reform.  Monday, we saw that they will attempt to hide behind non-existent legal obstacles to block reform demands. 

On Monday, the WeDemand coalition that organized the petition drive to force the tax proposal on the ballot and the campaign that defeated it proposed a 14-point plan to reduce jail overcrowding.  On of the more significant proposals was to divert at least one-half of the $6.5 million in drug and asset forfeiture funds presently held by the Sheriff to the cost of housing inmates to assure that dangerous criminals would not be released onto the streets.  Presently, this $6.5 million in such funds are held and spent at the discretion of the Sheriff.  In the past, he has spent that money on a variety of items, including teddy bears and coloring books, but not the Sheriff’s declared priority of funding inmate housing.

Before analyzing the law of the merits of the proposal, Commissioner David Pepper rejected the proposed reform, saying: “Ohio law does not allow drug forfeiture funds to be used for that purpose.” (Cincinnati Enquirer, online edition, November 12, 2007.)

Fortunately for the taxpayers, Pepper is wrong, again.  Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 2981.13(c)(2)(a)(v), the uses to which funds within the Sheriff’s Law Enforcement Trust Fund may be spent include “for other law enforcement purposes that the . . . county sheriff . . . determines to be appropriate.” Clearly, Ohio law allows these excess funds to be spent for housing dangerous inmates, rather than allowing them to roam the streets.

WeDemandABetterPlan.Com Chairman Jason Gloyd said “David, instead of rejecting all attempts to solve this problem without a huge tax increase, we suggest you actually read the law.  Really, reform is possible if you just open up and try.”

Gloyd also suggested that if it was too much for Pepper to actually read the law before rejecting the reform proposal, he might have consulted with his colleague Commissioner Todd Portune.  Portune, last year, initiated a motion to ask the sheriff for a contribution from his asset forfeiture funds to help pay for new jail construction, but abandoned his own proposal this year after endorsing the now-rejected super size jail sales tax. 

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

anon says:
14 Nov 2007  at  12:26 am | #

Dean, Justin, MEP and the NAACP - collectively, the “hypos” (hypocrits) - are NOW switching the sides in FAVOR of jailing poor black men at the expense of cuts to programs for poor black kids!!!!!!  You guys are sellouts - that’s all.

So, Hypos, while the tax vote was pending -you all claimed it was all about putting these people in jail and NOW, ....  just Hypos.

What the heck happened to the reforms first, jails second?
What the heck happpened to not draining the poor with regressive taxes, when now you support cutting programs to that same population?

Hypos
Hypos
Hypos

cincysuz says:
14 Nov 2007  at  08:25 am | #

That’s what I’m wondering. They got what they wanted. Supposedly everything was fine the way it was, now they’re claiming that there’s jail overcrowding? 14 points worth? What’s Gloyd talking about when he says “solve the problem”? What problem? WTF? Just last month the anti-jail group were claiming that a night at Queensgate was like a spa vacation at Hilton Head and programs were so abundant that any more would just be redundancy. All was good in the Queen City. They wanted it to stay the same and it did. Same sorry City Council. Same no-plan for crime. I repeat. WTF? You won. Don’t start crying about crime and overcrowding now.

Monica says:
14 Nov 2007  at  01:28 pm | #

Sue,
I do not recall anyone stating that “things were fine the way they were” (that’s because it was not said, at least not by the folks who opposed issue 27) would you please stop making things up or in your fine words...lying. There is a need for criminal justice reform which is a great deal more than a jail dressed up in alleged social programs. Either your ability to reason and comprehend is severely challenged or you are just incapable of facing and/or stating the truth, I suspect that it may be a bit of both.

says:
14 Nov 2007  at  02:15 pm | #

CincySuz once again misses the mark.  The different groups that made up the anti Issue 27 coalition never said there wasn’t a problem.  What they did say was that a $777 million regressive tax was not the way to address it.

anon says:
14 Nov 2007  at  05:37 pm | #

NO - they said that they all agree filling jail beds with the mentally ill, poor and homeless low level offenders and the injustices going on in the county must be addressed BEFORE taxpayers fund their jail beds.

that’s what they CLAIMED to have in common.

And while DeWine talks criminal justice reforms out of one side of his mouth - he funds keeping black men in jail for petty offenses despite the inequities out of the other side of his mouth.

Tell me, pray tell me, where is DeWine posing any funding to address the injustices against the most vulnerable.

Oh yea, that’s right - he wants to cut funding to lower the high school drop out rate to pay to keep the father’s of these kids in jail for stupid offenses.

If DeWine was a man of his word (for just a day) he would refuse to fund jail beds until the reforms are fixed --- afterall, isn’t that what he said during the campaign to all you, his loyal followeres?

cincysuz says:
14 Nov 2007  at  07:54 pm | #

Monica - quit stalking me Dude. What YOU recall is of no interest to me.

But to others, I remember many anti-Safety Plan posters making specific reference to the number of jail beds with accompanying, boring data to support their position that we had enough. Also programs were cited, especially rehabilitation programs including the services of The Talbert House. Queensgate was discussed as being up to standard, again with the accompanying reports to support that position.  There were many claims that crime was down. It was a multi-pronged approach from every angle to defeat Issue 27. Something that almost anyone could latch onto.  And it worked. Kudos. I’m not going to read through the hundreds of posts to prove that these things were said and I guess you can pull the standard, “prove it” line you’ve been using a lot as of late. But you know I’m telling the truth. I was active in the debate. But if these things aren’t true then exactly what was your argument against the jail? Simply the stardard COAST, “we don’t want no stinkin’ taxes” position? Or are you sticking to the ridiculous argument that the building creates more inmates which in no way can be substantiated? Don’t be such sore winners. You’re the majority. You won.

says:
14 Nov 2007  at  08:01 pm | #

’“Ohio law does not allow drug forfeiture funds to be used for that purpose.” (Cincinnati Enquirer, online edition, November 12, 2007.)’

anon,
We hear you, but the bottom line of this post is “for what may drug forfeiture funds be used”?

Let me ask you this:  Should law enforcement have the right to confiscate money and/or property under any circumstances?

I don’t think so.
This is a bad habit society has slipped into, sort of like the war on drugs in the first place.

anon says:
15 Nov 2007  at  12:15 am | #

Frankly, I don’t know what the forfeiture dollars can be used for, but I recently read a case wherein the state asked the feds whether they could use the funds for certain purposes - so I know it is regulated by the feds as well as the state.

As to the practice of confiscating illegally gotten gains - cash, cars, homes, etc… well, it seems reasonable on its face, but I’m absolutely certain it is being abused extensively and I don’t think the cops should be in charge of the money - how about a crime victims group or public defenders or rehabititation for inmates

cincysuz says:
15 Nov 2007  at  07:49 am | #

A more socially responsible and sensitive approach would be to work toward doing away with, or proposing tight controls over, this practice of taking people’s property without due process.  And in many cases confiscated illegally. Even people found innocent of charges are not able to recover what belongs to them because they don’t have the resources it takes to pursue through the courts. Why? Because their resources have been confiscated.

Now finding a different purpose for the funds, that you happen to like, instead of calling for a moratorium of the practice, doesn’t give you the high ground in this argument.

Monica says:
15 Nov 2007  at  10:09 am | #

Sue, of course only what you recall/remember is relevant!

cincysuz says:
15 Nov 2007  at  12:46 pm | #

Well yes Monica what I remember IS relevant. At least to this discussion. Because what I recall/remember is actually accurate and not something I concocted out of thin air. When I comment, it’s not based on reports I claim to have heard from somebody that knows somebody that knows somebody else in Brown or Grant County. Shouldn’t you just stop bringing attention back to your lies? That would be the wise route.

Monica says:
15 Nov 2007  at  02:08 pm | #

Sue,

I see. Thank you again for confirming what many of us already suspect.

Monica says:
15 Nov 2007  at  02:25 pm | #

Although I am curious to know what makes your recollections any better than mine or anyone else’s? Oh are you the Supreme Recollector?? Is that your new title now? Or are you just some bitter, uninformed woman who has too much time and not enough sense to know when she is out of her league?

cincysuz says:
15 Nov 2007  at  07:47 pm | #

You’re curious to know what makes my recollections better than yours? Simple. Mine aren’t lies.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: