NEW YORK CITY — In 2016, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 57 in response to a directive from the U.S. Supreme Court ordering the state to reduce its prison population, a mandate rooted in findings that severe overcrowding amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. According to The New York Times, the measure was intended to ease overcrowding while incentivizing rehabilitation.
Proposition 57, formally known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act, sought to address the crisis the Supreme Court identified in 2011, when it ruled that conditions in California’s prisons violated the Constitution.
One of its key reforms granted the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation the constitutional authority to award credits to incarcerated people for good behavior and for completing approved rehabilitative or educational programs, The New York Times reported.
The New York Times reported that this effort to encourage rehabilitation initially proved successful, with many incarcerated people shortening their sentences by earning credits. Lance Gonzalez, after spending 16 years at Ironwood State Prison, described feeling “liberated” by the chance to see his family sooner than expected; he earned enough credits to reduce his sentence by five and a half years by attending and leading self-help groups.
Shajia Ayobi, during her 14 years at Central California Women’s Facility, ran substance abuse classes and was assigned to a special dorm for model residents. Despite parole board findings that both individuals were suitable for release, they remain incarcerated today, a situation shared by more than 200 people in California.
In 2022, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, arguing that the department had applied Proposition 57 too broadly. In a press release, the organization claimed that “the CDCR has been releasing violent criminals, including murderers, years earlier than the law allows.”
The California Court of Appeals later limited the department’s discretion under Proposition 57, holding that credits could not be used to advance a person’s minimum eligible parole date where existing law did not permit it, according to The New York Times.
Despite assertions from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation that Proposition 57 endangered public safety, the CDCR and criminal justice reform advocates have disputed that claim.
Heidi Rummel, director of the Post-Conviction Justice Project at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, said the ruling punishes people who have demonstrated meaningful rehabilitation and “is affecting the people who are actually the safest to release.”
According to a report from the California Board of Parole Hearings, recidivism rates for people released after serving life sentences with the possibility of parole are extremely low, with fewer than 1% convicted of new felony offenses within three years of release between 2011 and 2020.
The New York Times reported that criminal justice advocates have also raised concerns about how the new limits on Proposition 57 are affecting prison culture. Under the Newsom administration, California has adopted the California Model of incarceration, which emphasizes rehabilitation and positive relationships between staff and incarcerated people.
Lobbyist Danica Rodarmel said the rapid shifts in sentence-shortening policy amount to “psychological torture” for those impacted.
Shajia Ayobi told American University professor Rachel Louise Snyder that the stress of knowing even the smallest infraction could jeopardize her chance at release has been devastating. By contrast, Steve Berinti, who was released in part because of Proposition 57, told KQED that “Prop. 57 decreased the violence and increased hope,” contributing to a healthier prison environment.
Although the CDCR retains significant discretion to award credits to people convicted of nonviolent offenses, criminal justice reform advocates are expected to continue pressing for an expansion of the credit system to include people serving indeterminate sentences for violent offenses.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
