BILL ANALYSIS AB 17 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 17 (Swanson) - As Amended: May 5, 2009 Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote: 7-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill: 1)Increases the maximum fine for felony pimping, pandering, or procurement from $5,000 to $20,000. 2)Specifies that 50% of the grants to child exploitation and sexual abuse counseling centers and prevention programs administered by the Office of Emergency Services, now known as the California Emergency Management Agency, or Cal-EMA must be directed to community-based organizations that serve underage victims of human trafficking. (The fund source for these grants includes the fines referenced above.) 3)Adds abduction for prostitution to the list of crimes that constitute criminal profiteering, for which asset forfeiture can be sought. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Unknown, likely minor, increase in fine revenue. Based on the 135 persons committed to state prison in 2007 and 2008, combined, for pimping and pandering under the sections amended by this bill, if 20% of these offenders paid a $20,000 rather than a $5,000 fine (assuming ability to pay), the annual revenue increase would be about $200,000. 2)Earmarking 50% of the current grants provided to child exploitation and sexual abuse counseling centers and prevention programs to community-based organizations that serve underage victims of human trafficking would reduce the AB 17 Page 2 grants to organizations that currently receive them. Assuming only a minor increase in fine revenue as a result of this bill, grant funds for child exploitation and sexual abuse counseling centers and prevention programs, estimated at $600,000 for 2009-10, would be reduced by 50%. 3)Unknown, likely minor increase in asset forfeiture revenue as a result of adding abduction for prostitution to the list of crimes that constitute criminal profiteering, for which asset forfeiture can be sought. Based on the 135 persons committed to state prison for this offense in 2007 and 2008 combined, any forfeiture revenues would be modest at best. 4)Proliferation of assessments and charges has driven fines upward . For example, a $20,000 criminal fine with current maximum assessments would actually be $76,080, shocking defendants, and probably judges. 5)Increasing assessments may result in diminishing returns . Judges do have the discretion to reduce the base fine, which then reduces revenue to state and local governments, as well as to assessments. As current penalty assessments can almost triple the base fine, increasing fines and assessments may have the unintended consequence of reduced fine collections. Indigent defendants facing ever-increasing fees may simply choose to spend time in jail in lieu of paying the fine, causing taxpayers to pay the jail costs while the state and local governments receive fewer penalty funds. Moreover, county jail population caps may provide additional incentives to opt for jail time over fines, as the time served for nonviolent offenders may be minimal. As noted by the California Research Bureau (CRB) in its 2006 review of penalty assessments, "High penalty assessments may result in higher rates of default by the guilty parties. Some offenders may spend time in jail, or plea for community service, rather than pay the fine and penalty assessment. The end result may be that a substantial amount of fines, fees and revenue is not collected." COMMENTS 1)Rationale. The author's intent is to increase penalties for human trafficking in an effort to deter the offense while providing additional funding for victims. AB 17 Page 3 According to the author, "We are facing a modern day slave trade in our cities across this state and across the nation. Countless children, from foster youth to runaways from more affluent neighborhoods are being trapped, sold and mercilessly abused for profit. There are even reports that the number of children kidnapped for sexual exploitation have increased. Current financial penalties against traffickers are failing to stem the growing trade in underage youth. We need to make this enterprise a losing proposition for everyone involved." 2)Opposition . The CA Public Defenders' Association (CPDA) raises several concerns with what they acknowledge is a well-intentioned bill, primarily that it is extremely unlikely these offenders will be able to pay the fines this bill envisions. "CPDA and those involved in the court system, however, know from real-life experience, that in reality, the vast majority of persons charged with these offenses are small-time street hustlers who are represented by public defenders when they are arrested because they are indigent! While CPDA applauds creative efforts to deter crime and provide funds for victims, this legislation will accomplish neither of these goals." Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081