Everyone recognizes that the current sentencing system is broken, and yet in an election year, two needed reform measures died in the supposedly liberal Assembly.
Yesterday, the Assembly could not even a pass a measure that would have placed the measure to alter three strikes legislation before the voters. It failed 36-34 with ten members not voting. The sponsor, Mike Davis, is going to attempt to get reconsideration in the next week, in hopes that some of the absent members vote and push the measure over the top.
Last year, the legislature failed to put the death penalty measure, that would have altered the sentencing and commuted death sentences to life without parole, before the voters. That measure is now being circulated as an initiative that would qualify for the November ballot.
The legislation would have amended “the ‘Three Strikes’ Law, subject to voter approval, to require that the current conviction be a ‘serious’ or ‘violent’ felony in order to subject a defendant to an enhanced sentence under the 25-years-to-life (third strike) provisions.”
It also “[r]equires the current conviction to be a serious or violent felony in order for the third strike (25-years-to-life term) provisions of the Three Strikes Law to apply.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis of this legislation is that it would likely save in the tens of millions of dollars in reduced incarcerations, depending on the number of sentences reduced. In 2011, there were 148 third strikes that were committed to state prison. “Annualizing this figure, assuming 30% have a non-violent, non-serious third strike (based on the current percentage of 8,813 third-strikers whose third strike was a non-serious/non-violent offense), requiring a third strike offense to be violent or serious could reduce the lifer population by about 60 inmates per year, and about 1,000 in 20 years, resulting in annual savings in the range of $15 million in 10 years, increasing annually to about $50 million in 20 years.”
“This bill is necessary because current three strikes law has led to many unjust sentences over the past 18 years that are not proportionate to the offense. As an advocate for fair and just society, this reality is quite troubling,” Assemblymember Mike Davis said Monday.
He cited the millions in annual savings, up to $15 million a year, and argued, “These resources could be better spent by investing in education, rehabilitation and other meaningful economic development incentives of our state.”
Assemblymember Davis argued, “At a time with high prison overcrowding in this state, which has come at great cost to the taxpayer, AB 327 is common sense policy for California. The original intent of ‘Three Strikes’ was to protect the public from violent offenders by extending the sentences of violent offenders.”
“Current policy, however, has gone beyond this intent by extending the sentences of all third-time felony offenders, not simply those for violent or serious felony offenders,” he continued. “Ultimately, this has led to unfair sentencing, as well as prison overcrowding. The solution is simple: amend ‘Three Strikes’ so that the third strike must be a ‘serious’ or ‘violent’ felony. This will help California direct its resources toward the real threat to public safety.”
AB 327 would ask voters to require that a third strike be a serious or violent felony before an offender could be sentenced to a 25-to-life prison term under California’s three strikes law.
Exceptions would be made under AB 327, however, for offenders whose previous crimes included murder, a sex crime against a child, a sexually violent offense, or various other heinous acts.
Republicans defended the current legislation.
“This is a grave issue,” said Assemblyman Jim Nielsen. “Three strikes came to pass because repeat, unrehabilitated offenders were preying again and again and again upon our families, our children, the people of our community. And it has worked.”
Meanwhile, Republican Assemblymember Donald Wagner argued, “As a society we have a right to say, ‘We’re tired of you and we’re going to deal with you harshly.’ “
The question is really whether we should be doing that in cases that involve relatively minor crimes. For instance, in recent weeks, Yolo County has seen possible third-strike cases for taking scrap metal out of a recycling receptacle, for possession of drugs, not to mention the infamous cheese case where an individual took a $3.99 bag of shredded cheese from a Nugget store.
Assemblymember Tom Ammiano said on Monday that the three strikes law has strayed from its original intent. For example, he cited cases where third-strike offenders have been sentenced for “crimes against property,” drugs and other offenses, including drunken driving convictions.
“There are very egregious crimes on one side; there are non-violent, minor crimes on the other,” he said. “We do need to review this, reform it. I say let the voters decide.”
The Assembly also defeated a bill sponsored by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano that would have created a tiered sex-offender registration system.
Under current law, people convicted of various sex offenses are required to register with the state for life.
Under the provisions of this law, it would have established “a four-tiered registration system for sex offenders for periods of 10 years, 20 years, or life and additionally creates an ‘inactive registration’ tier for those individuals not otherwise registered.”
Tier One registrants are those not convicted of either a violent crime or the crime of molesting a minor – they would be subject to registration requirements for a period of ten years. They would also be required not to have committed a further offense during that ten-year period.
The second tier would subject them to a twenty-year period, and these are higher risk individuals who were convicted of a violent registerable offense, or the person was convicted of molestation – they would be required not to be convicted of another registerable offense or violent felony for a twenty-year period.
The third tier would have to register for life. These are people who are high risk, who may be repeat offenders, and classified as sexually violent predators (SVP).
According to the legislation, a third tier offender is described: “The person was a Tier Two registrant and subsequently was convicted of more than one specified felony, or the person was convicted of any specified registerable offense after becoming a Tier Two offender after having previously been a Tier One offender.”
The law also specified that “annoying or molesting a minor may not be included as a Tier One registrant.”
Assemblymember Ammiano argued, “”AB 625 creates a three-tier registration system for persons required to register under the state Sex Offender Registration Act based on the crime of conviction, criminal history, and other risk factors so that the state and local governments can concentrate on more closely monitoring high and moderate risk sex offenders.”
“California is one of the few states that requires lifetime registration with no discernment for the type of offense, and California also does not allow people to petition for removal from the list even when their offenses are not sexually violent or predatory, and they have no other violations,” he said.. “This one-size-fits-all approach puts a strain on state and local resources, casts all registrants in the same predatory mold, and perpetuates misinformation.”
He concluded: “This bill replaces the existing mandatory lifetime registration requirements for persons convicted of specified sex crimes and instead establishes three tiers of registration for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life.”
Opponents of the bill claimed that allowing some sex registrants to be placed on an inactive status would weaken current law and make communities less safe.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Everyone recognizes that the current sentencing system is broken, and yet in an election year, two needed reform measures died in the supposedly liberal Assembly.[/quote]
[quote]Republicans defended the current legislation.[/quote]
Since neither side of the state legislative aisle can get their collective acts together, it will be up to the individual citizens to fix the three strikes law, which is clearly dysfunctional. This is exactly why I am in support of the “proposition system” in CA…
[b]Prison Reform Bills on Three Strikes and Sex Offenses Die in Assembly [/b]
[i]”The report of my death was an exaggeration.”[/i]
[b]—-Mark Twain.[/b]
David, your report was premature. AB 327 is not dead ([url]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/01/assembly-changes-mind-and-passes-three-strikes-legislation.html[/url]). In fact, it passed the Assemlby today on a 41-33 vote and now is in the hands of the state Senate: [quote]Assembly Bill 327, approved by a vote of 41-33, now goes to the Senate. Assemblyman Mike Davis, D-Los Angeles, sought the re-vote after his measure lacked five votes for passage Monday, when 10 members either were absent or opted not to cast a vote. “We have the opportunity not only to be tough on crime but to be smart on crime,” Davis said in floor debate today. AB 327 would ask voters to require that a third strike be a serious or violent felony before an offender could be sentenced to a 25-to-life prison term under California’s three strikes law.[/quote]
If you actually read the article, it said: “The sponsor, Mike Davis, is going to attempt to get reconsideration in the next week, in hopes that some of the absent members vote and push the measure over the top.”
[quote]If you actually read the article, it said: “The sponsor, Mike Davis, is going to attempt to get reconsideration in the next week, in hopes that some of the absent members vote and push the measure over the top.”[/quote]
If the legislature doesn’t act, I suspect the people will…
I know this will never happen, but I’d love to see this kind of a reform put in place: that every time someone is placed into the criminal justice system in some respect, the public costs for incarceration and everything else are paid for up front upon conviction.
Here is how that would work: say you have an offender who is arrested for petty theft and felony assault; say he is sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in state prison, due to his prior record; and say the cost of his incarceration (in present dollars) will be $750,000 plus court, supervision, attorneys and parole costs of another $500,000. In total his arrest and conviction represents an expense to the taxpayers right now of $1,250,000.
Instead of paying that bill in drips and dribbles as we now do, what could be done is to pay the full amount (into an account up front).
The main reason I think this would be a better approach is that it would starkly and directly inform the public how much it costs for us to be “tough on crime.” In other words, the choice would be: Lock Joe Criminal up for four years and the bill would be $312,500; or lock him up for fifteen for $1,250,000. Every outcome would come with a defined price to the public treasury*.
If we choose the more expensive route for Joe Criminal, we will be forced to cut that extra amount from higher education or fire prevention or care for the poor and elderly, etc. It will be a direct choice in every case.
*Another option in this would be outsourcing Joe Criminal. That is, we could lock him up in California for $1,250,000 for 15 years; or we could send him to a private prison in Missouri and the expense up front would be $500,000.
Rich
I think this ( the pay up front, not the out sourcing) is a great idea ! I know from direct experience in medicine that people’s perception of what is
absolutely necessary for their well being frequently changes dramatically when they realize what it will cost them personally. If you write the initiative, I will sign it !