Sentencing Commission Bill Continues On

Legislative breaking news: The Sentencing Commission Bill, which was amended on April 13, has gone through the Committee on Appropriations, whose primary jurisdiction is fiscal bills, and is back before the assembly. An analysis of the bill, authored by Asm. Jose Solorio, has a positive take on establishing the sentencing commission, citing, among other sources, the Little Hoover report on the California Corrections Crisis. The report, as some of you may recall, dispelled myths about sentencing commissions, and as you’ll see in the original Little Hoover press release, tried to dissuade politician fears that having a sentencing commission means being “soft on crime”:

The Commission recommended that the State begin a comprehensive evaluation of its sentencing system by establishing an independent sentencing commission with the authority to develop sentencing guidelines that become law unless rejected by a majority vote of the Legislature. The Commission said California should learn from states with effective sentencing commissions, such as Virginia and North Carolina.

“Critics who suggest that a sentencing commission is a code word for shorter sentences are misinformed,” Alpert said. “Other states have used sentencing commissions to lengthen sentences for the most dangerous criminals, to expand community-based punishment for certain offenders and to bring fiscal responsibility to criminal justice policies.”

The Commission asserted that the Supreme Court ruling on January 22, 2007 that found California’s determinate sentencing law unconstitutional provides one more impetus for an independent commission to conduct a systematic review of California’s sentencing laws and propose long-term solutions.

The analysis also details the many times in which sentencing commission bills came before the Assembly and failed. Will our economic concerns lead politicians to leave behind their fears of being soft on crime and fix the sentencing system? Stay tuned!

The Flu Arrives in CA Prison System

As reported by CDCR:

SACRAMENTO – The State Viral Lab is reporting that the inmate case at Centinela State Prison that had been categorized as 95% probable has now been confirmed. The inmate remains in Centinela Prison. His case remains mild. The infected inmate’s cellmate remains under quarantine but has not exhibited any symptoms of H1N1 Influenza. The actions taken by California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) appear to have stemmed the spread of the virus at Centinela Prison. No other potential cases have been reported there.

However, the receiver’s office is currently monitoring numerous other potential cases throughout the system that have been sent for testing. More detail on those cases will be available once they are deemed probable or are confirmed. Due to the new potential cases, the visiting restrictions will continue in effect until further notice.

Much has been said in the last few days about the justification for the swine flu panic that has been sweeping the world. Whether or not the panic and precautions are necessary is a topic for a different blog. It is certainly the case, however, that whatever the dimensions of the problem is, it is orders of magnitude more problematic in prisons and other total institutions than in other places, for obvious reasons.

Should this become more problematic, in terms of numbers of cases, it will be a real test of the Receivership’s ability to handle such issues in a difficult environment.

Survey Research

This post is only tangentially related to Califronia corrections; my apologies about that. I am posting to invite all of you to participate in a web-based survey I am conducting, which examines how people respond to interpersonal problems.

The survey is anonymous and confidential and can be completed in a few minutes. I will very much appreciate your participation, and will be particularly grateful if you forward the link to your friends, colleagues, and students. We are looking for a large, diverse group of respondents.

http://www.whatwouldyoudosurvey.org/introduction.asp

The survey has been IRB-approved and I am happy to provide the exemption letter upon request.

Thank you,

HA

Killing Me Softly


More news from CDCR: The state has submitted lethal injection procedures to the Office of Administrative Law, which are available for public review and comment. The public comment period will close on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 5PM. A public hearing has been scheduled for June 30, 2009 from 9AM-3PM at the Auditorium of the Department of Health Services, 1500 Capitol Ave.

Take a look at the regulations, or read more about them from our blogging friends over at PrisonMovement.

I find myself somewhat speechless at the entire computer-generated display, complete with euphemisms, so I’ll just express puzzlement over the construction plans in the face of a $400,000,000 deficit. I prefer the New Mexico solution.

Re-entry Program for Women Parolees

As reported on the CDCR website, the first cohort of female parolees is graduating from the Female Residential Multi-Service Center (FRMSC) in Sacramento. The FRMSC, founded a year ago, is the first of its kind in California and provides gender specific programs (the need for which was so eloquently explained by Barbara Bloom a while ago) and services for female parolees. Here’s more about the program:

Twenty-five women can stay at the center from six months to a year. They are referred to the FRMSC from a parole agent or the Board of Parole Hearings upon release from prison, or in lieu of returning to prison for a violation.

The FRMSC offers a variety of gender responsive services including case management, trauma treatment, substance abuse and domestic violence education, life skills development, family focused services, parenting classes, educational services, GED preparation, vocational training and family reunification services.

…

When a woman arrives to the FRMSC she is assessed by the treatment team which includes an alcohol and drug counselor, family therapist, program director, vocational developer and parole agent. She is then evaluated in the following areas: substance abuse history, traumatic life events, family history, housing needs, legal issues, medical issues, employment and educational history. Based on these assessments, the team will identify strengths and needs and will try to maximize the potential of each individual woman.

…

In order to graduate from the FRMSC program, women either must be employed, enrolled in a vocational training program, or taking college courses. Also, graduates must have a stable place to live.

And true to the spirit of humonetarianism –

Housing a woman at an FRMSC is cheaper than the average cost of housing her in prison. It costs approximately $109 per day at the FRMSC compared to $126 per day at an institution.

Let’s Do Something


After a series of legal struggles, Troy Davis’ life is in danger again.

The 11th Circuit denied his request for a new trial, rejecting his argument of actual innocence.

This is not a California issue, but it concerns all of us. May 19 has been declared a Global Day of Action for Troy Davis. Whatever you think about the death penalty, please read more about this case, and if you have a feeling, as I do, that something very wrong is about to happen, let’s do something.

State Senate Panel Approval: Progress in Cate’s Confirmation

A State Senate Panel has voted to confirm Cate as CDCR secretary, but the conversation included some difficult questions, as reported in the Sac Bee and in the Daily Roundup from Capitol Weekly.

The vote came after Cate complied with a request to submit a “benchmarks” report to members setting rehabilitation and education goals.

Steinberg called Cate “the right person for the job” but said the secretary would need “a lot of help.”

. . .

Steinberg asked why, out of a population of 155,000 in traditional state prisons, Cate’s goal is to have only 15,837 prisoners in academic classes by June 2010.

“It does beg the question: What about the rest of the inmates?” Steinberg said.

. . .

Steinberg also asked about Cate’s goal to have 300 mentally ill parolees receiving comprehensive housing and mental health services by June 2010.

Right now, about 22,000 parolees receive limited services at clinics, but no parolees are in a comprehensive program.

Cate, whose resume includes extensive prosecutorial experience, spoke at our conference last month about the difficulties and expenses involved in making programs available to prisoners. He now has his hands full implementing his plan for making $400,000,000 budget cuts.

Sentencing Commission Bill: Vaguer Definitions

At the request of one of our readers (thanks, Tom!) , we’re posting some more information about the legislative proposal to create a California Sentencing Commission. At our conference in March, Kara Dansky, Executive Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, discussed the potential for reform using a commission, as well as answered some possible critiques of the idea. For more on that, here is her review from a while back on the California Progress Report. 

Here is the proposal itself, from Assembly Member Bass, after a few changes made in mid-April. As you’ll see when you read it, the main change is moving the sentencing intentions and definitions out of the proposal itself, as well as out of the hands of the legislature, and into the hands of the commission, whose purpose is now defined much more vaguely:
There is hereby established an independent, multijurisdictional body to provide a nonpartisan forum of statewide policy development, information development, research, and planning concerning criminal sentences and their effects. 
This is much vaguer than the original intent behind the proposition, and may have to do with the ability to better “sell” a body whose authority is not clearly defined, as well as with the will to keep the commission free from constraints. It also might mean that their decisions would not necessarily be binding. Who knows? Interestingly, Crime Victims United of California consider A.B. 1376 a “placeholder” bill, and see it as a cause for concern.

More on the CDCR Budget Cut (again, from secondary sources)

I wonder why CDCR does not have the budget cut details posted to its website. All they have done so far, in terms of public information, is to tweet about others’ responses to the plan. At this point, therefore, I can provide some more details about the plan and about different reactions to the plan.

You may recall the $400,000,000 cuts from the Governor’s budget action in February, which included the Governor’s expectation that the cuts be implemented ““in a manner that promotes rehabilitation and preserves public safety.” The original budget action also mentioned some specific ways to deal with the problem:

Counties will recall that over the last several years a range of proposals have been put forth by a variety of sources — expert panels, the Administration, and the Legislature, among others — that aim to reform the corrections system, while realizing cost savings. These proposals include various approaches to parole reform, credit enhancement, increasing thresholds for property crimes, and other sentencing changes. It is not certain whether CDCR will pursue these or other means for achieving the $400 million in savings, but the CDCR Secretary and staff have assured counties and local law enforcement stakeholders that they welcome input and suggestions, given that any reform effort is sure to impact local governments and local public safety. CSAC will continue to be engaged on counties’ behalf regarding these proposals and any others that may be considered in order to meet the Governor’s directive.

Here are the main changes, as they appeared on the Chron, the L.A. Times, and the Sac Bee:

  • Reduction of parole population by 25% (about 30,000 parolees), focused on nonviolent offenders
  • Impact of reduction: lesser parole violations, less returns to prison – a projected reduction of 4,000 in prison population
  • Expansion of good behavior credits for inmates who successfully complete educational/rehabilitative programs – a projected reduction of 4,000 inmates
  • Increased use of GPS monitors for parole violators, rather than a return to prison
  • A change in the definition of grand theft, which will raise the threshold from $400 to $950 (the previous number was set in 1982!)
  • Elimination of 150-200 positions at CDCR’s Sacramento headquarters
  • Closure of one juvenile prison
  • As a concession to law enforcement opponents: proposed legislation that will allow police to search former prisoners and seize evidence of a crime from them without a warrant for at least three years after their release, even if they are not on parole

Some initial thoughts:

The decrease in parolee numbers is probably a healthy thing. I wonder whether it will be tied to severity of offense or to some measure of risk assessment (CDCR, please post the details on the website!). Most importantly, the hope is that the decisions on who is let off the hook will be in line with the parole reform suggestions that CDCR had begun working on.

The concession seems to be quite dramatic, its constitutionality seems questionable, and it certainly does not lie in CDCR’s realm of expertise. Search and seizure raise constitutional issues, and in the current climate, given that this exercise of power doesn’t have a price tag attached to it, I don’t see CA courts, or even the Supreme Court, dismissing such legislation. The Supreme Court has been typically dismissive of the rights of former prisoners in respect ot search and seizure, exemplified by its decision in Samson v. CA (2006), which allows for a suspicionless search of parolees. So, this concession will be a legislative expansion of Samson to non-parolees as well.

While a 8,000-inmate reduction may seem dramatic to victim advocacy groups, it is a far cry from the 50,000-inmate reduction suggested in the Plata v. Schwarzenegger tentative decision, and will have a very small effect on the overcrowding problem (not that releasing 50,000 inmates with no re-entry programs to speak of is a good idea in this economy, as we argued elsewhere).

One prison is closing down. Will the CDCR continue building other prisons? Three weeks ago there was still talk of looking for $810,000,000 (twice the budget cut!) for purposes of prison expansion.

What do you think?