南昌治疗精神病的治疗(南昌好的躁狂症专科医院) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California has already moved to automatically expunge the records of those convicted of qualifying marijuana crimes. Now, Democratic lawmakers and advocates want to erase the records of those who have served their time for other crimes.The lawmakers and dozens of supporters rallied in sweltering heat Tuesday supporting two Assembly-approved bills that would automatically expunge arrest and conviction records for an estimated 1 million residents who are already entitled under existing law because they have completed their sentences and supervision."Right now, if you serve your time you still can't get housing, you still can't get work, you still get treated like a criminal," said San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting, who authored one of the bills.His bill would require the state attorney general to catalog qualifying arrest and conviction records of lower-level felonies and misdemeanors so they can be cleared. That's similar to a law that took effect Jan. 1 requiring the attorney general to identify by July 1 those who are eligible to have their records scrubbed because California legalized recreational marijuana in 2016 and made the reduction in legal penalties retroactive.Supporters of Ting's bill and a related bill by Oakland Assemblyman Rob Bonta said the current expungement system is too cumbersome and too few take advantage even if they qualify. They count more than 4,800 California legal restrictions on those with convictions."Every right should be restored," said state Sen. Nancy Skinner of Berkeley. "Once you've done your time, that's enough."Jay Jordan, executive director of the nonprofit Californians for Safety and Justice that organized the rally, said he served eight years in prison for a robbery he committed at age 18, and still bears the consequences 15 years later."I can't sell real estate, can't sell used cars, can't sell insurance, can never adopt, I can't coach my son's Little League team, can't join the PTA, can't chaperone him on field trips," he said. "It just harms people. It doesn't make economic sense, doesn't make public safety sense."A state association of law enforcement records supervisors opposes the bill, saying it would be costly and burdensome when people can already petition to have their records expunged. Legislative analysts said the bills could cost tens of millions of dollars, though Jordan said that would be offset by the economic benefits of letting more former felons get jobs.The bills awaiting consideration in the state Senate would "unnecessarily put the burden on records management personnel, who are short staffed and without sufficient resources, to move arrest dispositions to an automated system, a very labor intensive and cost-prohibitive task," objected the California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors, Inc. The group fears it would also create a legal liability for agencies that inadvertently miss a qualifying record.The lawmakers propose to use technology that can search for qualifying records, which Ting said can greatly reduce the time and cost. 3099

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — Prosecutors have filed eight new charges against a Perris father accused of shackling and starving some of his 13 children, alleging that he lied on government forms about their schooling.The Riverside County district attorney's office said Friday that David Turpin was charged with eight felony counts of perjury related to paperwork he filed yearly with the California Department of Education certifying his children were receiving a fulltime education in a private day school.John Hall, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, said one charge was filed for each year the paperwork was completed from 2010 to 2017.Turpin and his wife Louise previously pleaded not guilty to torture, child abuse and other charges in a case that has drawn international attention since the couple's 17-year-old daughter escaped the family's Perris, California, home in January and called 911.Authorities said evidence of starvation was obvious, with the oldest sibling weighing only 82 pounds, and the children were shackled as punishment, denied food and toys and allowed to do little except write in journals.Turpin, who appeared in court briefly Friday wearing a sage green button down shirt and yellow tie, didn't enter a plea to the new charges during a brief hearing in Riverside. His attorney declined to comment after the hearing.The couple, who are each being held on million in bail, is due back in court May 18 and has a preliminary hearing scheduled for June 20.State records show Turpin listed the family's home address in Perris, California, as the site of a private day school.The children, who were removed from the home and initially hospitalized, ranged in age from 2 to 29. 1721

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — While California is seeing a slowdown in the spread of the coronavirus and counties are starting to fall off a state monitoring list for infections, Gov. Gavin Newsom says rules are not yet ready for businesses in those areas to reopen. Santa Cruz, San Diego and Placer counties recently came off the list and Newsom said Wednesday San Francisco will likely soon follow. He says counties can expect more details next week on what will be required for businesses like indoor gyms and salons to reopen in areas that fall off the monitoring list. Forty of the state's 58 counties remain on the list. 630

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — High-capacity gun magazines will remain legal in California under a ruling Friday by a federal judge who cited home invasions where a woman used the extra bullets in her weapon to kill an attacker while in two other cases women without additional ammunition ran out of bullets."Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote as he declared unconstitutional the law that would have banned possessing any magazines holding more than 10 bullets.California law has prohibited buying or selling such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before then were allowed to keep them.In 2016, the Legislature and voters approved a law removing that provision. The California arm of the National Rifle Association sued and Benitez sided with the group's argument that banning the magazines infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.Benitez had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect with a 2017 ruling.Chuck Michel, an attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said the judge's latest ruling may go much farther by striking down the entire ban, allowing individuals to legally acquire high-capacity magazines for the first time in nearly two decades."We're still digesting the opinion but it appears to us that he struck down both the latest ban on possessing by those who are grandfathered in, but also said that everyone has a right to acquire one," Michel said.Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement that his office is "committed to defending California's common sense gun laws" and is reviewing the decision and evaluating its next steps.The goal of the California law is to deter mass-shootings, with Becerra previously listing as an example the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino.Benitez, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, called such shootings "exceedingly rare" while emphasizing the everyday robberies, rapes and murders he said might be countered with firearms.The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, named after a former congresswoman who survived a mass shooting, is also still evaluating whether the decision applies more broadly, said staff attorney Ari Freilich.But Freilich predicted the "extreme outlier decision" will be overturned on appeal and criticized a judge "so deeply out of touch that he believes mass shootings are a 'very small' problem in this country."Becerra previously said similar Second Amendment challenges have been repeatedly rejected by other courts, with at least seven other states and 11 local governments already restricting the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines. The conflicting decisions may ultimately be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.Benitez ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets.In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone."She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped.The magazine ban was included in 2016 legislation that voters strengthened with their approval of Proposition 63, which was championed by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.In a statement, Newsom criticized the judge's ruling."This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law," the governor said. "I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." 4228

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom overruled a parole board's decision to free Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten on Monday, marking the third time a governor has stopped the release of the youngest member of Manson's murderous cult.Van Houten, 69, is still a threat, Newsom said, though she has spent nearly half a century behind bars and received reports of good behavior and testimonials about her rehabilitation."While I commend Ms. Van Houten for her efforts at rehabilitation and acknowledge her youth at the time of the crimes, I am concerned about her role in these killings and her potential for future violence," he wrote in his decision. "Ms. Van Houten was an eager participant in the killing of the LaBiancas and played a significant role."Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members stabbed to death wealthy Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, in August 1969. She said they carved up Leno LaBianca's body and smeared the couple's blood on the walls.The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that spread fear throughout Los Angeles and riveted the nation.No one who took part in the Tate-LaBianca murders has been released from prison. It was the first time Newsom rejected parole for Van Houten, while former Gov. Jerry Brown denied her release twice."Nobody wants to put their name on her release, but when they're speaking honestly or off the record, everyone wants her to go home," said Van Houten's attorney, Rich Pfeiffer.Newsom is "going to have more political aspirations that go well beyond the state of California, and he doesn't want this tagging behind him," he added. "Not a surprise. I would have been shocked if he would have said 'Go home.'"Earlier this year, Newsom reversed a parole recommendation to free Manson follower Robert Beausoleil for an unrelated murder. Beausoleil was convicted of killing musician Gary Hinman.Newsom's decision on Van Houten outlined her participation in graphic detail, noting that after the killings, she "drank chocolate milk from the LaBiancas' refrigerator" before fleeing."The gruesome crimes perpetuated by Ms. Van Houten and other Manson Family members in an attempt to incite social chaos continue to inspire fear to this day," Newsom wrote.Van Houten is still minimizing her responsibility and Manson's "violent and controlling actions," he said, and she continues to lack insight into her reasons for participating.Van Houten's lawyer said in January after her latest release recommendation that the parole board found she had taken full responsibility for her role in the killings."She chose to go with Manson," Pfeiffer said. "She chose to listen to him. And she acknowledges that."Van Houten has described a troubled childhood that led her to use drugs and hang around with outcasts. When she was 17, she and a boyfriend ran away to San Francisco during the so-called Summer of Love in 1967.She later encountered Manson while traveling the coast. Manson had holed up with his "family" at an abandoned movie ranch on the outskirts of Los Angeles when he launched a plan to spark a race war by committing a series of random, terrifying murders.Brown rejected parole for Van Houten in 2017 because he said she still blamed the cult leader too much for the murders. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld Brown's decision last year, finding that Van Houten posed "an unreasonable risk of danger to society."An appeals court will decide whether to uphold or reject that ruling by the end of July."No governor's ever going to let her out," said Pfeiffer, Van Houten's attorney who's pinning his hopes on the appeals court. "They are bound by law to enforce the law independently. They have to do it whether or not it's popular with the public ... and the law is that she should be released."Manson and his followers were sentenced to death in 1971, though those punishments were commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. Van Houten's case was overturned on appeal and she was later convicted and sentenced to seven years to life in prison.Tate's sister, Debra Tate, has routinely shown up to parole and court hearings to oppose the release of any Manson follower. Even though Van Houten didn't take part in her sister's murder, Tate said she didn't deserve release under any circumstances.Supporters of Van Houten said she had been a model prisoner who mentored dozens of inmates and helped them come to terms with their crimes.Manson died in 2017 of natural causes at a California hospital while serving a life sentence. 4729

来源：资阳报