How the criminal justice system could soon change in San Diego and across California

S1: Welcome to KPBS roundtable. I'm Scott Rod. Today on the show , what does criminal justice look like in San Diego following the election ? We discuss potential changes with the passage of proposition 36 , which increases punishment for certain drug and retail crimes.

S2: Is the pendulum swinging ? Yes , but it hasn't swung all the way back to where we were ten years ago.

S1: Then we unpack calls for San Diego police to reduce the dangers of high speed chases after two recent pursuits turned deadly. And in our weekly roundup , we'll chat about private prisons , a local potential Superfund site , and artificial intelligence in dating. That's ahead on KPBS roundtable. California voters have approved by a wide margin proposition 36 , a state ballot measure that increases punishments for certain drug possession and retail theft offenses. While the measure received strong support , it's also sparked debate. It signifies at least a partial reversal of California criminal justice reform efforts in recent decades , and it's projected to cost tens of millions of dollars for local governments and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for the state. Here to discuss what this means for San Diego and how the new rules might be implemented is Andrew Keates , reporter at Axios San Diego. Andrew , thanks for joining Round Table.

S2: Yeah , thanks for having me to start.

S1: Tell us about prop 36 , what changes it will make and who supported the measure.

S2: So prop 36 is a partial rollback , as you said , specifically of a measure from about ten years ago called prop 47. Prop 47 took a handful of drug and theft crimes and turned them from felonies into misdemeanors. And prop 36 takes essentially those same crimes in terms them back from misdemeanors into felonies. And it also creates a new form of , um , of punishment that would sort of mandate drug treatment for people who commit some of these crimes. So it would , yes , divert them from one part of the criminal justice system , but it would do so mandatorily and through the criminal justice system into drug courts and the sorts of avenues that lead to behavioral health treatments.

S1:

S2: And it's and Republicans in the legislature and district attorneys across the state , that's who put the measure on the ballot. And they sort of begrudgingly pulled along a number of other Democrats , whether it was mayors or more moderate members of the legislature , over the course of time. I think people read the writing on the wall politically , and you saw more people take a more active stance supporting it. But you also had people like our mayor here in San Diego , Mayor Todd Gloria , who was an outspoken supporter from the very beginning. He even began his state of the city speech last year before this measure existed , indicating that he was going to provide full throated support for some sort of proposition 47 reform. So there were a number of people in the end who had voted for it , and I think that was reflected in what you ended up seeing from the voters , which was a pretty broad base of support and who.

S1: Expressed opposition to. It.

S2: It. Opposition ? You definitely. I mean , the most prominent person was Governor Gavin Newsom , who basically said that this was unnecessary , that you had other people who were to the to the left of the groups that we described earlier , some of whom argued that they had already handled some of the problems. That was there was a legislative package that that sort of beefed up enforcement opportunities and law enforcement tools around retail theft. Theft. Um , one of those , a very prominent one , was allowing officers or prosecutors to string together multiple thefts to add up the dollar figure of those thefts. If you can , if you could tie the same people to the same crimes. Um , to to reach the sort of felony threshold. Um , if you'd spent any time in California over the last ten years , you would hear a lot of talk about one of the big things that was said to be a result of proposition 47 , which was , um , sort of organized crime in grocery stores and other retail establishments , pharmacies that would steal right up into the threshold and then sell that stuff , uh , in a black market situation. Um , but but as long as they stayed below the dollar figure where it triggered a felony , they knew that they didn't have huge punishments awaiting them. And so so , you know , even before we get to prop 36 , the legislature was trying to solve that by saying , well , if we can put three , you know , subsequent crimes together , then we take that sort of inherent ability to work the system away from them. And.

S1: And. Right. And so the legislature passed that bill package , but clearly wasn't enough to convince voters they still got behind proposition 36. You reported on a meeting last week held by San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and state Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas , where they discussed prop 36. And here's what Gloria said after the meeting.

S3: All of this stuff's going to take some time. Implementation of this stuff is extremely complex , but I think the speaker knows that we're very committed here in San Diego to do what it needs to be done to build the rehabilitation facilities , the mental health facilities , as well as to work with law enforcement to have people who commit crimes to be held accountable.

S1: So , Gloria , they're doing some expectations setting. Right. It's going to take some time. It's extremely complex. How will prop 36 be rolled out in San Diego , and what changes do you expect prosecutors , police and drug treatment facilities to make ? Yeah.

S2: So drug treatment facilities is sort of doing a lot of work in this implementation problem. Um , here in San Diego , there are not enough beds or for all of the treatment facilities that we have that would like to use the system already. There's not detox opportunities , there's. So to suddenly bring in a whole swath of new people who are going to be mandated into that system. You know , again , we were already looking at a dire shortage. So he says we're going to have to build treatment facilities. I don't know , you know , if you're familiar with that , how long it takes to build anything in this state. It doesn't happen quickly and it doesn't happen cheaply. And property owners in 36 did not create any new revenue. It did not fund some of the changes that it's making. So that's a big one. And then you've got smaller ones that exist all along a continuum. And it's the same sort of , you know , series of events or chain of events that was often at play during the prop 47 period , where , for instance , you have police officers who need to be willing to make an arrest. Sometimes that comes down to how many police officers there are on the street. But sometimes it also comes down to how worthwhile an individual police officer thinks it is to make that arrest. If you talk to police officers over the last ten years , they would often say that they weren't making these arrests because they would see the same person back on the street just hours later because they would be released from jails. Well , then you follow that up the chain of command and the jails would say , well , we don't have enough space. We don't have enough space for all of the people who are coming in. Um , you know , it's not like there's new money coming to jails from this measure. And jails here in San Diego especially have a lot of problems. You know , Mayor Gloria mentioned it in , in this press conference that the San Diego Sheriff's Department , which runs the jails , um , is already dealing with years and years of problems through in-custody deaths. This is a new challenge on top of that. And then after the jails , you get to the prosecutors. Prosecutors have to be willing to bring charges from the arrests that are given to them by officers. And they only do that when they believe that they're going to receive a conviction. And those convictions come down to how judges and juries are willing to act. And sort of all along that system , you've got people who are willing to change their behavior based on what they see from other people in the system. And that led to a lot of frustration during the proposition 47 era , where people who supported proposition 47 would often say , we didn't make those crimes legal. Suddenly we lowered the punishment for them. It's police officers who decided that it wasn't worth their time to file misdemeanor charges. Or and the police officers say , well , it was it isn't worth our time if prosecutors aren't going to bring those charges. And so now we're looking at a sort of an inverted version of that same problem where , okay , now you've changed the punishment that is available. You've changed the the charge that you can bring. But does that necessarily mean in a , in within a short period of time that's going to change the behavior of officers on the street , the incentives given to them by jails , the decisions made by prosecutors and what judges and juries are willing to do , And all of that all the way across that system comes down to the resources available for those discrete government agencies that control those entities. Right.

S1: Right. And as I mentioned earlier , the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that , you know , prop 36 , if implemented , would cost tens of millions of dollars at the local level. And then up to , you know , in the low hundreds of millions of dollars at the state level , of course , that money has to come from somewhere. So you just illustrated a very complex sort of not right in terms of how prop 36 could be rolled out , some of the challenges there. Do you think voters , generally speaking , recognized that there was such a sort of complexity behind how this could be rolled out , or did they anticipate that this could result in more short term changes , whether it be seeing , you know , less shoplifting , maybe seeing fewer glass , you know , doors covering the deodorant or.

S2: Um , I do think that the sort of campaign for proposition 36 sort of tied this issue to homelessness often , um , tied tied it to addiction , tied it to , uh , petty street crime and retail crime that was often associated with homeless people. And so I don't think it's a tremendous leap to say that people who voted in favor of this expect it to provide some sort of change. But at the same time , I mean , you know , how how , how reasonable is it to expect voters to be able to think through , you know , well , how are police officers going going to act ? How are jails going to have be available to them ? How are prosecutors going to react to both of those decisions , and how are judges and juries going to react to those decisions ? And then to put it in context of the budget picture for the entire state. The city of San Diego , you know , did like you know , the city of San Diego is staring down a budget shortfall now in light of the failure of measure E , a sales tax measure that was supposed to boost its budget. Um , that's like before you even , like , rope in any sort of additional expectations on the police force , which was already understaffed and has been for for many years. So I don't want to give the the voters short shrift. In fact , I would rather take up for them and say it's sort of unreasonable to expect that they had all of that in mind at the time that they made that decision. Um , because it is I mean , it's a it's a multifaceted issue that involves basically every level of government in the state.

S1: The little descriptors on the ballot are just maybe a sentence or two. But the reality is there's so much machinery and complexity behind a yes or a no vote on any of these ballot measures. Gloria , at the press conference after the roundtable with Assembly Speaker Reeves also offered a tough on crime message. Here's what he said.

S3: I appreciate this chance to be abundantly clear. If you do crime in the city of San Diego , we will find you. We will arrest you. We will take you to jail.

S1:

S2: I think he's noting where the voters told the public that they stand right now , whether it's on proposition 36 , whether it's recalling a progressive district attorney and , you know , two of them across the state , um , potentially , I think there's there's him communicating with an electorate that has spoken pretty clearly about where it stands on this topic and wanting to align themselves with , uh , himself with where they are. Um , what I think maybe an implicit message , though , is a frustration with police officers who have not always Provided , um , quick response to changes in policy. I think , you know , if you think back a year ago , the city spent months debating and unsafe camping ordinance that the mayor said was going to provide a significant change in the number of , um , tent encampments in the city of San Diego. That is not resulted in a lot of arrests. Um , you know , there will be you'll see different people take credit for it in different ways. Reduction in downtown encampments based on the downtown partnerships count. Uh , people respond by saying , well , that they've just shifted into state controlled areas off of freeways. Um , but it has not led to many arrests , for sure , that that's measurable. It has not led to many arrests. It hasn't even led to many warnings , really. Um , and so I think one sort of undercurrent of the last five years or so of city politics and particularly where crime and homelessness , um , sort of coalesce , which has been one source of frustration that the mayor has been talking about ever since he took office is , um , a the inability for officials to enact their policy preferences at the street level. And so what one thing I hear there is him saying , it is my expectation that this will lead to arrests , or at least to tell voters that that's what he wants to happen. Um , and , you know , for the reasons we talked about at the top of the show , I think it's a little bit less than obvious that that will immediately be the case. And I don't want to be too speculative or , you know , to forecast some sort of outcome. But I just think there are good reasons to , to wonder how many , how how immediate this change will be.

S1: I want to step back and look big picture. Right. Because as we mentioned , proposition 36 passed with a clear majority. What do you think drove so many voters in blue California to support this tougher on crime measure. And in general , does this reflect a shift in attitude away from California's previous criminal justice reform efforts ? On the.

S2: One hand. I don't see how you can't say that it does to some extent. Right ? I mean , it is a it is a direct response to proposition 47. Um , so and proposition 47 was absolutely seen at the time as a statement of California's willingness to embrace criminal justice reform to a certain extent. It followed on the heels of sorts , of a series of efforts to reduce prison overcrowding after the state Supreme court declared the conditions in prisons unconstitutional. Um , so to an extent , yeah , you have to view it that way a little bit. But I think it's totally possible to overstate how big that shift is. Um , even to the extent that this is still this , this policy status after proposition 36 is still to the left of where we were before proposition 47. Um , you know , the sort of drug court element of it is , to some extent , adopting what was once a very popular tool of the criminal justice reform movement. And so there is a sort of triangulation by the people who've used this to adopt some of the criminal justice reform movements theories and to implement it into their rollback. And so is the pendulum swinging ? Yes , but it hasn't swung all the way back to where we were ten years ago.

S1: I've been speaking with Andrew Keates , reporter with Axios San Diego. Andrew , thanks for joining us on roundtable.

S2: Hey , thanks for having me.

S1: When roundtable returns , the San Diego Police Department is facing calls to change the way it conducts high speed pursuits.

S4: Police themselves have as much incentive to make these pursuits safer as the general public does.

S1: We discussed the public safety balancing act between catching suspects and preventing dangerous accidents. That's just ahead on roundtable. You're listening to KPBS roundtable. I'm Scott Rodd. The San Diego Police Department's pursuit policy is getting some close scrutiny after a few deadly chases in recent months. A city commission is recommending changes to when officers pursue suspects. The commission says the overhaul could reduce needless accidents and ultimately save lives. But the police officers union is fighting the proposal. Here to tell us more is Katie Hyson , KPBS racial justice and social equity reporter. Katie. Thanks for joining roundtable.

S4: Thanks for having me to start.

S1:

S4: The driver police were chasing hit the car carrying the boys , and that car hit a tree and burst into flames. Um , allegedly , police started the chase over traffic violations , specifically speed and a non-working headlight.

S1: That is tragic. What are some of the common reasons that police chases start ? You had mentioned this specific incident was a result of , uh , suspected traffic violations.

S4: So things like a broken tail light or running a stop sign. That's by far the most common reason.

S1: The City of San Diego's Commission on Police Practices is an independent board made up of community members that investigates complaints against officers and also makes policy recommendations.

S4: The biggest recommended change is that CPD should not start these vehicle pursuits for basically lesser offences that don't pose an immediate or serious danger to the public. Things like a non-working headlight. Um , there are eight other recommendations , including things like establishing a vehicle pursuit review board , um , expanding how they track pursuit data , uh , exploring technologies like drones and GPS tracking that could make pursuits safer and more clearly signalling the end of a pursuit , like by pulling over from the road.

S1: You spoke with commission chairperson Gloria Tran.

S4: It asks SPD to reword their pursuit policy to prioritize the protection of life. These high speed chases are really dangerous , not just for the suspect , but also for bystanders and police themselves. Actually , just in the time the commission was reviewing the pursuit policy , at least three more people were killed by SPD vehicle pursuits , including an officer. So loss of lives is most key , of course , and pursuits also cause injuries and property damage.

S1: The commission's proposed changes have evolved over time. What were they initially Recommending.

S4: The latest version gives police more leeway to start pursuits than the preliminary recommendations did. At first , they asked police to limit vehicle pursuits only to violent felonies , so.

S1: Obviously that would have limited it pretty significantly. Like you said , they've pulled back from that a little bit , giving police a little more discretion.

S4: The response to that first tighter set of recommendations was interesting to watch unfold. Um , the police union started a social media campaign that called the suggested policy change , um , horrific and dangerous. They claimed it would stop them from pursuing people suspected of things like , um , DUIs , dealing fentanyl , um , battery. Human trafficking. The Commission on Police Practices tells me they wanted the union's input , and they asked the union to come to the table and talk with them , but the union hasn't responded. Um , the commission say they have been gathering input from other stakeholders , and that informed the changes they made to the recommendations. Um , Police Chief Scott Wahl is now reviewing these final recommendations and he has 60 days to respond.

S1: I reviewed some of the posts in that social media campaign that the police officers union put out , and they made claims like officers wouldn't be able to pursue , uh , suspects who may possess fentanyl or suspects who have violated domestic violence restraining orders.

S4: It's hard to say. I wish that police had been willing to really sit down and talk with me so that I could hear their perspective on those things. I would say that the the intent of the recommendations was very much safety , not just of the public , but of officers as well. Um , and that what they were asking is not unusual. A lot of major police departments in major cities already limit their vehicle pursuits to violent crimes. And so it's struck me , as I , I would say , highlighting these specific cases and not looking at the issue as a whole. And the the real harm that are is being caused by how pursuits are are currently done.

S1:

S4: There's been , um , some really moving public comment around this , um , and , you know , for each person that has been lost to these pursuits , they have loved ones who have to continue on without them. Um , but I , I can't speak to , you know , it's hard to know what the public as a whole think about this or if it's even on their radar.

S1: You mentioned there were other cities that tried to tackle this issue of dangerous police pursuits.

S4: Um , and actually , this problem is common enough across the country that several national policy groups , including the US Department of Justice and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , have already issued official recommendations that vehicle pursuits be limited to violent crimes. Um , and some of the other changes recommended are also things very common for larger departments. That's actually kind of unusual that that , uh. Well , I don't know if it's fair to say unusual , but it's notable that San Diego police don't do that already , including , uh , to pursue accreditation through something called the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. And part of that requires a yearly vehicle pursuit , uh , analysis. Um , so , you know , these recommendations really aren't too outside the box.

S1:

S4: And no , not at all. The chief has full discretion whether to accept any of these into what degree. So I'm curious to see how he responds.

S1:

S4: Um , just from my eyes , some of the recommendations do seem like really low hanging fruit , especially the one about making the end of a pursuit more clear to avoid confusion. Um , any of the recommendations that don't. That don't , uh , limit police officers ? Uh , discretion , I think , will be easier to push through than the others. Of course , anything that doesn't cost additional money is probably easier to push through as well. There's some recommendations that just ask them to have , for example , a consistent definition of pursuit , but especially about the making the end of the pursuit more clear. The officer who was recently killed in an SPD vehicle pursuit. Police say that pursuit had actually been called off already , but his car was still responding to the area when they were hit. And maybe a change like what CP is recommending might prevent something like that from happening again. But I would imagine , especially after that officer's tragic death , that police themselves have as much incentive to make these pursuits safer as the general public does.

S1:

S4: And it's part of what the board. It's part of what the commission reviewed and coming up with this policy. But there are limitations to that data. Um , and one of the recommendations actually , is that they , the police expand the tracking of this pursuit data to include injuries , death and damages that happen after a pursuit is officially terminated. So currently they're they're only tracking , um , they're only tracking ramifications that happen before the pursuit is officially terminated. But as we've seen recently , oftentimes the impact of these chases don't stop just after the the chase is called off , you know , on the police radio. Um , and , and it's also part of what makes it difficult to grasp the scope of this nationwide is that the tracking isn't always uniform across departments. Um , if the tracking exists at all. And so I'm curious to see if the police does adopt expanding the tracking of pursuit data. Um , what ? We'll see. You know , a year or two years from now of the real scope of this issue , and also if that will inform their policy decisions at all.

S1:

S4: And I would say , I would say more. So not having complete data. And um , that's something that reporters get come up against all the time. It's really hard. You find yourself and I'm sure you know this as an investigative reporter , that. What you're able to report conclusively on often depends on what data is being tracked and how. And so , you know , you're never going to fully grasp the scope of an issue. Um , you're always constrained to what data is available. Um , and this is just another case of that , that there's less data than I as a reporter and I'm sure the commission , um , as they're trying to hold the , the police to certain standards , I'm sure it's less data than they'd like as well.

S1:

S4:

S1: I've been speaking with KPBS racial justice and social equity reporter Katie Hyson. Thanks for joining me today.

S4: Thanks , Scott.

S1: Up next , we discuss other stories making news in San Diego and around the world in the weekly roundup. You're listening to KPBS roundtable. You're listening to KPBS roundtable. I'm Scott Rodd. It's time now for our weekly roundup , where we discuss stories from the past week that caught our attention. And joining me is a very special guest , KPBS border reporter Gustavo Solis. Goose , thanks for joining me , Scott. Hello.

S5: Hello. Thank you.

S1: So this is your first ever roundup. I'm honored to be hosting it. I'm going to let you start us off. What was the story that caught your attention ? Uh , Voice.

S5: Of San Diego wrote a really interesting story about county Supervisor Nora Vargas. Kind of butting heads with county Supervisor Tara Lawson. Remer. It's over. A huge issue. Very important issue in the South Bay. Right ? The Tijuana sewage crisis. I'm assuming everyone's heard about it. We've covered it extensively here. But it was such an interesting story because on the one hand , you have Terry Lawson Reamer , who wants to declare it a Superfund site. On the other hand , you had Nora Vargas who wanted to block it. And the reporting I thought was super interesting because at the beginning , the framing was we have to stop it because we got to do a little bit more research into what it means to be a Superfund site.

S1: In a Superfund site is basically when the government designates an area as basically it says like this area is very bad , it has bad chemicals in it , such sort of , you know , toxic waste or something along those lines , often for industrial sort of. Consequences for land. But it could be other things as well. But essentially it labels specific areas as particularly hazardous.

S5: Which we don't have too many here in California or any that I'm aware of. I mean , the part of the country you're from has a couple of them.

S1: Thanks for noting that.

S5: No problem. But it's a big deal. It's a big deal. And I think it kind of matches the seriousness of the situation right now. Right. Imperial beach , the coastline was closed for a thousand days at one point. And the reporting , I thought it was so interesting because it kind of it didn't really suggest or hint it said that an alternative motivation that Supervisor Vargas had was to open up a park in that area , which I thought was just kind of bonkers. Right. Superfund site or a park in the same area. Like , you can't have both , right ? It has to be one or the other. There's a bit of.

S1: Cognitive dissonance there , which , you know , the the suggestion is basically , if this area is declared a Superfund site. That's bad for certainly marketing or branding if you're going to put a park there. I don't know if many people would say , that looks like a nice park. Wait a minute. It's a Superfund site. I don't think I want to go , so this might go.

S5: Who's going to go to this.

S1: Park ? Yeah , this fight is very interesting. And there is a reason to designate something , a Superfund site beyond saying , hey , there's concern here about , you know , whatever it may be , hazardous chemicals , toxic chemicals. It's also to signal to the federal government to work with them to say , hey , let's get some more funding. Let's get some more attention here to address the problem. It's just not labeling it a problem area. It's actually to get more funding.

S5: So which are both key right funding. And the intention is why , uh , local elected officials have put pressure on the , on the governor to call this a state emergency.

S1: There's another story in Voice of San Diego that caught my attention. The headline was a man convicted in a major law enforcement scandal is doing big business with the city that is the city of San Diego. You know , the story details this guy who ? His name is Giovanni Carlota. He owns a business called Omni Equipment Solutions that supplies public safety equipment to the city. Toledo was convicted of three felonies in a major scandal a few years ago that involved a sheriff's deputy who was illegally trafficking guns and helping cannabis businesses evade police. Toyota was involved in it by forging paperwork to support the gun trafficking , now lost his gun dealers license , but he can still sell other equipment , and voice found that since his conviction a few years ago , the city of San Diego , including San Diego Police Department , has purchased more than $1 million in equipment from Omni , including pistol magazines and night vision goggles. You know , several of these deals between CPD and Omni occurred while Tyler was actually in prison last year. So SPD claims , you know , they followed all the necessary procedures that there aren't they aren't required to do background checks on all of their vendors. You know , the city said it's going to further evaluate whether it does future business with this company. But I mean great , great work from voice digging into something that would probably seem very mundane. Uh , you know , receipts with vendors that the city has to , you know , see where they're getting their equipment. Um , I just thought it was excellent reporting.

S5: I think it is great reporting. I mean , there's so many great stories potentially hidden in plain sight just by looking at the receipts , looking at the purchase orders. I've found a couple in my career that way out of Chula Vista with their police department. It's a yeah. I mean , it's a great place to find stories. The idea that this gentleman made so much money while in prison , I thought it was really interesting on a couple of different levels. One , we just had a ballot measure about forced labor in prison. Now , granted , that kind of labor gets you paid pennies. Um , and while he was in prison , I believe it was $76,000 he made while he was in there.

S1: It was ? Yeah , it was in the tens of thousands. Yes.

S5: Yeah , it was almost more than and I checked I looked it up in the census , um , Annual household income in San Diego is like $98,000. He almost made that in six months while in prison.

S1: It's I mean , it's yeah , it's wild that especially that it just didn't it went sort of unacknowledged or maybe the police department , the city were just unaware of it. So again , good on Wilson's voice , San Diego.

S5: But there's also no rule against this , right ? Like they don't have to do background checks. And even if they did , is there something that says you can't do business with with convicts ? I mean , we , like most of the country , just selected one.

S1: It appears that there is no requirement for , you know , any sort of restriction. Again , Taylor had his gun dealers license revoked , so he wasn't able to deal guns or sell guns necessarily , but he was able to sell the magazines other equipment. Um , so very interesting reporting. Speaking of prisons , there was a story from ABC news that detailed how private prisons are seeing an opportunity with president elect Donald Trump's immigration policy plans and potential for mass deportations. Tell me about that.

S5: It is a great time to be in the private prison industry right now. Define great in the capitalist sense , right ? Yeah. The story was about how specifically the Geo Group , one of the largest private prison companies in the US , but also CoreCivic. Another one , uh , really got a boost in in their , their , their share price went up like they made a lot of money from the election of President Donald Trump , all tied to his promises of mass deportation. And I think it's just a really , really important , um , just interesting look at how the economy reacts to the election and one that touches on something. I cover immigration. You can't have mass deportation without mass incarceration. You can't have that without private companies , because the federal government just doesn't have space to keep everyone in there right now. And here in San Diego , we don't have geo group. We do have Geo group facilities in California , but not in San Diego. In San Diego , we have CoreCivic , which is the Otay Mesa detention facility. But some of the quotes from the earnings report from Geo Group. Do you have the story pulled up ? Do you want to read some of them ? Because they were very , uh , like they're not being shy about it right there. They're they're happy. They like the new policy. It's going to be a boost for business. I think there were talks about these companies making billions and billions of dollars in the next four years through government contracts , which we're all funding.

S1: Right ? I do have the story pulled up here. And yeah , some of the quotes are eye popping. Uh , the founder of Geo Group said it's , quote , a potential sea change for the industry. That is Trump's deportation plans. He also said , quote , the Geo Group was built for this unique moment in our history and the opportunities that it will bring. End quote. So like you said , not being shy about it , seeing this as an opportunity to make money , it is striking the fact that these were comments that were made in just an earnings calls , you know , that were out there that , you know , are open for pretty much anyone to listen to. Um , and it speaks to , you know , with this incoming administration. I think there's a lot of examples of this where different industries are seeing opportunities , where they haven't had them in the last four years or eight years or however long , really. Crypto industries , another one we can get. We don't have to get into that. But , you. Know.

S5: Know.

S1: We'll avoid that for everyone's sake. But there are these industries that are seeing openings to , you know , openings with the Trump administration to potentially cash in.

S5: Oh , it's a total 180. I mean , the Biden administration , one of his policy proposals was to stop , you know , kind of divest from private prisons , have them less involved in it. And the criticism here is that these facilities are not as transparent as government run facilities. They don't have a great track record. If you look at lawsuits surrounding some of these facilities , I know here in San Diego at the Otay Mesa Detention Center , several people died during Covid because they allegedly weren't following the protocols. Um , it's very hard to get into these facilities. It's very hard to interview people in these facilities. Transparency is an issue , oversight is an issue. And it does put people in in risk. I mean , I did a story earlier this year about a nurse supervisor who sued , uh , CoreCivic , uh , alleging that they were chronically understaffed. The implication was to save some money right on their staff , but that left a dangerously low nurse to patient ratio. And she described a couple of examples of people with minor , you know , in infections that became serious issues and people weren't treated right when they were supposed to. Things got worse and they had to be hospitalized for it. So the earnings call is one thing , but then the potential for human suffering is quite another one as well.

S1: A different story that for me was very dark , maybe in a different way , was from the New York Times. And I didn't feel this way until maybe reading this story , but I artificial intelligence just might be the end of human civilization in the near future. This New York Times article was headlined are AI clones The Future of Dating ? I tried them for myself. And you know , it turns out that people are turning to AI chatbots not just for advice on dating , but to create dating clones of themselves , to chat with prospective partners or other clones to determine if it's a good match. In this one , intrepid New York Times reporter handed over his dating life to AI , and it was just , I mean , remarkable to read. There's also a service that creates AI dating app photos. It's a whole industry , apparently , and the sort of conversations from these AI clones is just cringeworthy. I mean , I'll read.

S5: Some of them , please. I love because the story everyone should read this story because it includes , like the transcripts , for lack of a better term , of some of these conversations. But there are some eye to eye conversation like so. No , people are talking , just.

S1: Little robots talking back and forth. This one actually is between the reporters clone and a real human. So the clone says , if you could only eat one snack for the rest of your life , what would it be ? And some nice young lady named Rachel responds , mozzarella sticks ! And the reporter's clone says , crunchy , cheesy bliss. Three exclamation marks. What is it about mozzarella sticks that makes your heart skip a beat that is brutal to read ? And did it work ? I don't think so , man. I do not think this guy had luck with this clone. There was another service that offers coaches , you know , you could kind of I coaches. Let me be clear where you can bounce you know questions and ideas off of. There's also another service called Riz , which is what the young people say to refer to charisma. And this service costs $10 a week. And it just writes your responses for you on these apps , which I should note the irony if you're using an app to write all your responses , you probably have zero results. Nevertheless.

S6: As you were.

S1:

S5: Right.

S1: Right. Until tell me about that episode.

S5: Is a brilliant episode. It's great. It's this entire relationship and , well , you I don't want to give too much away , but it is these people stuck in this place that they can't leave , and they're just dating over and over and over and again. And you can't leave until you find the person you're supposed to be with. Um , and then towards the end , there's a big reveal where this was just like the , um , personification of a dating app. And you just see two people meeting for the first time who happened to match. But that was all that went behind creating a match. Um , but I think , I don't know , someone who's on dating apps and hates them. I loved reading about that. As someone who hates AI , I was just kind of happy with how bad it is at helping people and how clearly just flawed it is. In some ways. I think one of the things I enjoyed reading about was how , you know , the way it's supposed to work. It reads your profile , you put it whatever you want , and it takes information from your profile to communicate who you are to to potential match. Some of the AIS went rogue , and we're talking about like , I went on a trip to Japan that this guy never went on , or specific restaurants in San Francisco that were apparently his favorite. But the real Eli had never gone to like. So I did like that aspect of it.

S1: Yeah , I don't know , call me old fashioned , but I met my fiancé on a dating app messaging with my old two thumbs. I think that's the way to do it.

S5: There we go.

S1: Anyway , surprisingly , the I did not help that reporter improve his dating life. Well , that's a wrap for this week's roundup. Gustavo Solis , thanks for joining me.

S5: Thank you. Scott. Hope maybe you invite me back. I don't know , we'll see.

S1: We'll take it under consideration.

S5: All right. Thank you.

S1: That'll do it for our show this week. Thanks so much for listening. You can listen to KPBS roundtable wherever you get your podcasts. Roundtable airs on KPBS FM at noon on Fridays and again Sundays at 6 a.m.. If you have any thoughts on today's show , we'd love to hear from you. You can email us at roundtable at pbs.org , or leave us a message at (619) 452-0228. Roundtables. Technical producers this week are Brandon Tufa and Adrian Villalobos. This show was produced by Quinn Owen. Brooke Ruth is Roundtable's senior producer and I'm your host , Scott Rodd. Thanks for listening. Have a great weekend.