AB 109 is DANGEROUS. Governor Brown signed AB 109 the Criminal Justice Realignment Bill into law on April 5, 2011.

Transcription

1 AB 109 is DANGEROUS Governor Brown signed AB 109 the Criminal Justice Realignment Bill into law on April 5, Governor Brown stated in his signing message on AB "For too long, the state s prison system has been a revolving door for lower-level offenders and parole violators who are released within months often before they are even transferred out of a reception center," Brown said in his AB 109 signing message. "Cycling these offenders through state prisons wastes money, aggravates crowded conditions, thwarts rehabilitation, and impedes local law enforcement supervision." The Administration is blaming prison overcrowding on the number of parole revocations for technical violations of parole (for example not showing up for a parole appointment). Though this sounds good, it simply isn t true. Actually, only sixteen percent (16%) of parolees returned to custody involve cases based on a technical violation of parole 1, and of those, many of those technical violations are gang activity, violating no contact orders in place to protect victims of crime, and non-compliance by sex offenders with the terms and conditions of their parole. The overwhelming majority of prison inmates have either committed a serious or violent felony or have been convicted of numerous felonies and have failed to curtail their criminal behavior even after several grants of felony probation By its terms, AB109 will not go into effect until a community corrections grant program is created by a yet to be enacted future statute and funding is appropriated. The Governor stated "I will not sign any legislation that would seek to implement this legislation without the necessary funding. However, no minimum funding requirement has been specified and therefore it is uncertain what necessary funding really means. By its terms AB 109 could become operative even if only a portion of the funding local law enforcement would need to continue to ensure the safety of the public given the additional areas of responsibility AB 109 placed on them is appropriated. 1 Parole Violations and Revocations in California, Ryken Grattet, Ph.D., Joan Petersilia, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Lin, Ph.D, October 13, 2008, pg

2 A few facts about this new law: AB 109 shifts thousands of criminals from our state prisons to our overcrowded local jails Under the terms of AB 109, most non-serious non-violent crimes will be punishable by imprisonment in our already overcrowded local county jails. Only those felons convicted of violent felonies (or a felon convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of a violent felony), felons required to register as a sex offender and felons convicted of a small list of non-violent felonies would be eligible to serve their sentence in a state prison. As CVAA has reported over the years, many non-violent/non-serious crimes are actually quite serious and violent. The legislature has refused to add those crimes to the list of violent and serious felonies under California law. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates that nearly 45,000 felons that would otherwise be locked up in our state prisons will instead be transferred to our overcrowded local jails As CVAA has reported, many counties are already operating jail systems that are overcrowded and do not have the space to house the convicts they are currently responsible for. In fact, many of our urban counties are already operating their jail systems under state or federally imposed population caps. AB 109 will overwhelm local jails. With nowhere to house new offenders, criminals will end up getting a get out of jail free card only to come back into our communities to commit more crimes, and potentially more violent crimes, that they will not be held accountable for. AB 109 forces counties to pay for space to house inmates AB 109 authorizes counties to contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for beds in state prisons for the commitment of persons from the county convicted of a felony. No room at the local inn? No problem, for a fee, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will be happy to house those inmates that the county cannot accommodate for approximately $50,000 a year per body. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and our politicians in Sacramento know our local officials will not be able to afford this fee for more than a select few extremely dangerous felons. AB 109 releases the Department of Juvenile Justice from housing juvenile offenders AB 109 states that unless a county has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the state before July 1, 2011 to house their juveniles not appropriate for county incarceration, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) shall no longer accept any juvenile offender commitments from juvenile courts. Any wards that the county sends to DJJ will have to be paid for by the county. AB 109 allows criminals to receive reduced sentences AB 109 requires that all prisoners incarcerated in our county jails after July 1, 2011, will have their good time credits increased from 33% to 50%. That means these inmates will only have to serve half of their sentence. So, if a convict is sentenced to 4 years, he/she will only serve 2 years of their sentence under AB 109 if they are incarcerated in a county jail instead of the 3 years they would serve now. AB 109 eliminates parole for certain inmates and limits probation terms 2

3 This new law provides that inmates serving a term in prison for certain felonies will be subject to community supervision, instead of state parole supervision, for a period of no more than 3 years. AB 109 creates the Post-release Community Supervision Act This law establishes within each county a local Community Corrections Partnership, an executive committee, as specified, to recommend a local plan to the county board of supervisors on how the 2011 public safety realignment should be implemented within that county. AB 109 limits the role of the Parole Services Division of the Department of Corrections and the Board of Parole Hearings Instead of supervising all felons released from state prison, the Department of Corrections Parole Services Division will now only supervise felons convicted of violent felonies, those required to register as a sex offender, and those felons convicted of a short list of specified felonies. Furthermore, the Board of Parole Hearings will only be able to return a felon who has a life sentence to state prison for violating their parole. All other felons who violate parole will be housed in our overcrowded local jails. AB 109 changes the voter approved Jessica s Law - Proposition 83 Jessica s Law was voted into law by the citizens of the state of California on November 7, Under Jessica s Law, felons convicted of specified sex offenses and who have been released on parole from state prison, must be discharged from parole by the Board of Parole Hearings if he or she has been on parole for 6 years since release from confinement, or 20 years in the case of a conviction for a specified sex offense. The Board has the authority to remand the offender on parole if necessary. AB 109 transfers all supervision duties for sex offenders from the Board of Parole Hearings to our local district attorneys, courts and county jails. California s courts are overwhelmed as it is, and were not created to perform the task of making parole revocation decisions for convicted felons especially dangerous sex offenders who require specialized supervision and treatment. AB 109, in its current form, violates Marsy s Law/Proposition 9, the Crime Victims Bill of Rights passed by the voters in A couple examples of this follow: 1) Shifting Parole authority to Superior Courts Penal Code 3044(a) reads, Notwithstanding any other law, the Board of Parole Hearings or its successor in interest shall be the state's parole authority and shall be responsible for protecting victims' rights in the parole process. Penal Code 3044(b) reads, The board is entrusted with the safety of victims and the public and shall make its determination fairly, independently, and without bias and shall not be influenced by or weigh the state cost or burden associated with just decisions. The board must accordingly enjoy sufficient autonomy to conduct unbiased hearings, and maintain an independent legal and administrative staff. The board shall report to the Governor. Whereas the superior courts of California can make independent decisions, they are constitutionally mandated to be separate from the Executive Branch. The voters were clear that jurisdiction over parolees is to remain with an independent, unbiased decision maker within the purview of the Executive Branch. In addition, moving the responsibility of parole authority to the superior courts will result in an inconsistency of victim protection and participation depending on the individual jurisdiction s application 3

4 of Marsy s Law. This of course is not in compliance with what the voters of California demanded with their enactment of this law. 2) Victim Participation in the Parole Process Marsy s Law amended the California Constitution to require specific rights to individual victims during criminal and parole proceedings. One such right is the right to victim notification of all parole and postconviction release proceedings as well as the right to be heard at any and all proceedings. AB 109 in PC (e) allows for the modification of parole terms, including revocations and parole lengths, without any regard for victims and their rights. Again, going against the will of the voters of the state of California. AB 109 will diminish services to victims of crime One-way restitution for victims is collected is through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from inmates housed in the state prison. Counties have not perfected the restitution collection process and therefore the concern is that as more criminals are sentenced and housed in our county jails, the less restitution will be collected. The state restitution fund is currently facing bankruptcy this shift may deplete the restitution fund even further causing the state to no longer be able to assist victims of crime financially. In addition, many services now offered through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation may not be available at the local level leaving victims without assistance and support. AB 109 requires inmates released to county supervision be released to the county that was their last legal residence AB 109 contains no provisions for special conditions of parole designed to protect their victims, such as the current restriction of living with 35 miles of the victim. AB 109 will release parolees from parole supervision on July 1, 2014 This new law requires that anyone on parole that is not defined in statute as violent, serious or a sex offender, regardless of the length of parole ordered, will be released from parole on July 1, AB 109 requires Community-based punishment "Community-based punishment" means evidence-based correctional sanctions and programming encompassing a range of custodial and noncustodial responses to criminal or noncompliant offender activity. Intermediate sanctions may be provided by local public safety entities directly or through public or private correctional service providers and include, but are not limited to, the following: A) Short-term "flash" incarceration in jail for a period of not more than seven days. B) Intensive community supervision. C) Home detention with electronic monitoring or GPS monitoring. D) Mandatory community service. E) Restorative justice programs, such as mandatory victim restitution and victim-offender reconciliation. F) Work, training, or education in a furlough program pursuant to Section G) Work, in lieu of confinement, in a work release program pursuant to Section H) Day reporting. I) Mandatory residential or nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs. 4

5 J) Mandatory random drug testing. K) Mother-infant care programs. L) Community-based residential programs offering structure, supervision, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, literacy programming, employment counseling, psychological counseling, mental health treatment, or any combination of these and other interventions AB 109 is COSTLY Currently there is no secured funding source associated with AB 109. Though the Governor has stated that he will NOT implement the measure without a funding source, neither he nor the legislature has identified a specific dollar amount minimum to fund the measure or where this money may come from. Originally, a constitutional amendment to allow voters to extend certain current taxes was identified as the source of funding for the provisions of AB 109 however, the measure has not been able to pass the legislature and therefore it is not an option to fund AB 109. Even if a funding source is identified, the Governor only intends on providing our local law enforcement agencies with funding for 5 years and then costs would be solely the responsibility of the counties. What does this mean for you? Increased fees and fines Senator Steinberg also has a bill, SB 656, which would greatly expand the ability of local governments to increase local taxes and lower the vote threshold for the passage of local taxes to 55%. 5