Nina Salmo Ashford who Chairs California United for Public Safety recently published an article in the Fox & Hounds Daily, July 13, 2011 titled, "Time To Think Outside The Cell Block." In this article she runs parallel ideas regarding the AB 109's "realignment" plan that mandates release of 39,000 California prisoners over the next three years to the proposed post-conviction surety bonds (same as a bail bond) that will presumably protect California citizens from these zombies, excuse me prisoners, about to descend on California.

The theory behind the post-conviction bond is accountability, whereby linking the defendant's compliance to the "terms of his or her probation. If the defendant fails to comply…" well, you know the rest of the story - back to jail where they started in the first place! Oh yes, we forgot to mention the bail bondsman who probably posted the original bond before they were sentenced and sent to state prison. Now the bondsman has the opportunity to post another bond; a post-conviction bond. What an opportunity for the bondsman or so you would think.

She further remarks the post-conviction bond – really the bondsman "would track and return the offender to court – at the expense of the bail agent, not taxpayers." Hey, bondsman already to this to protect their bond from forfeiture. What a nightmare. Now the bondsman has to worry if the person shows up for a probation appointment! It was easier to worry over a simple court appearance. Think a little more clearly on the subject, Miss Ashford; you are asking the bondsman to micro-manage the state's over-crowding problem and the state’s "ill-thought-out sentencing laws" according to Vijay Das, Guest Commentary for the Contra Costa Times, who posted on July 1, 2011 an article on prison overcrowding. He sites "California's draconian sentencing laws" as the main culprit for this AB 109 ruling to exist per overcrowded conditions (See the real story: HUFFPOST LOS ANGELES on California Inmate Release). The post-conviction bond is just another excuse for the lawmakers to put their head in the sand, ignore logic and reason, while they profess to be politically correct in their convictions (no pun intended) that correctional institutes correct the inmate.

The post-conviction bond proposal is full of challenges. One challenge might come from the ACLU. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union that might balk at the whole concept: put an individual in an overcrowded prison, don’t provide adequate housing or medical attention, release the same individual, perhaps a low-crime offender- a drug addict, expect him or her to 'pick up the pieces' of their disheveled life, make every and all rehabilitation requirements, as well as all probation meetings
without a hiccup. It's a prescription for failure and now the draconian laws may effect a heavier sentence than originally handed down when failure occurs. My crystal ball sees a revolving door and a vortex so strong that many will fail as fast as they are released despite gaining a post-conviction surety bond.