Just before New Year’s, our Mighty Signal posted my first five Top Ten legislative wishes for 2026.
These include mandating manufacturers to develop products that enable comprehensive recycling, changing residency definitions to eliminate the taking advantage by squatters and non-rent-paying tenants, legislating minimum corporate taxes for mega-businesses, removing the tax loopholes for the ultra-rich when they borrow from their own trust accounts as loans to avoid paying income tax, and removing the classification of “homelessness” as an entitlement so we can more appropriately address the actual challenges created by drug addiction and mental illness.
Here are my other five.
Consecutive sentencing. It has become customary that Superior Court judges sentence convicted criminals to only one serious charge proven, and ignore all other crimes committed at sentencing.
For example, in 2023 the “snake burglar,” Christopher Michael Jackson, despite pleading guilty to 54 separate felony burglaries, was sentenced to only seven months in jail. Second-degree burglary (Penal Code 459) should earn up to a three-year sentence per count. The snake burglar, however, was sentenced to one count, less time served, and the other 53 burglaries were ignored and unpunished.
One criminal conviction seems to grant forgiveness for the other crimes committed.
Each criminal act should be penalized consecutively instead of all at once. If this means life in prison, so be it. My experience is that serial criminals are rarely rehabilitated unless facing lengthy sentences.
Elimination of the government presumption that race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is an automatic disadvantage. The Small Business Administration, college admissions, county and state opportunities for contractor awards, etc. are clearly skewed to advantage minority, female, and people of color.
This practice, unfortunately, reinforces the notion that all these individuals are somehow “less than” and need government favor to achieve equal footing. Competency and ability do not need an artificial boost.
Equal resources for criminal defense. As a private investigator for 30 years, I constantly see the glaring difference between the criminal defense of a person with resources and wealth versus a “commoner.” This disparity is impossible to ignore.
The prosecution has a full team of attorneys, detectives, expert witnesses, lab techs, forensic scientists, and unfettered access to records not readily available to the defense — unless the defense has tons of money.
Notice the rich rarely serve in prison despite horrendous acts?
Without significant private funding, public defenders and defense attorneys have scant dedicated resources, no detectives or investigators assigned, and no labs or expert witnesses provided unless a painfully difficult plea for assistance from the courts is granted.
The deck is stacked against defendants who are without hundreds of thousands of dollars available.
Many innocent defendants plead “no contest” and plea bargain because they can’t marshal the resources to mount a vigorous defense. The presumption is that charged “common folk” are guilty and deserve only token representation.
The Legislature should create funds that allow for parity regarding a defendant’s right to a “fair trial.”
False advertising regarding background screening services found online.
When you go online to order a background check, most of your options are blatantly illegal under federal law. The Fair Credit Reporting Act states that searches must be reasonably comprehensive, verified directly with the government agency, and performed by an investigative consumer reporting agency, i.e., a licensed firm.
This means simply offering quick and cheap “instant searches” and “national criminal searches,” which ignore civil, restraining orders, warrants, and abuse cases, do not constitute a valid search. No instant search is comprehensive or verifies data directly with the court, nor covers every appropriate jurisdiction. All these illegal offers of instant searches should be banned.
Elected and appointed officials should be significantly fined for each blatantly false statement made while in office.
Electeds and appointed officials making wildly false claims disserve the public trust. A fact-checking special court, able to rule within 48 hours, could be easily funded by these fines, as the fine amounts would increase with each subsequent misstatement.
Qualifiers such as “people say,” “in my opinion,” and “if you look at it” would not avoid a fine for lying. PACs, donors, and campaign committees would be expressly forbidden to pay or reimburse an elected official for making false statements.
When numbers are used, representations should be precisely true. With a truth court, the public would have a neutral arbiter determine the veracity of an official’s statements and whether statements are to be believed.
My New Year’s wish is that these easy fixes will be enacted pronto. What are the odds?
Jonathan Kraut directs a private investigations agency, is the CEO of a private security firm, is the CFO of an accredited acting conservatory, is a former college professor and dean, is a published author, and is a Democratic Party activist. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal or of other organizations.
