BILL ANALYSIS AB 1376 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 1376 (Bass) - As Amended: April 13, 2009 Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote: 5-2 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill establishes "an independent, multi-jurisdictional body to provide a non-partisan forum for statewide policy development, information development, research, and planning concerning criminal sentences and their effects." FISCAL EFFECT 1)Because this measure is in skeletal form, precise costs cannot be determined. Based, however, on earlier sentencing commission models, annual costs would be in the range of $2.5 million, depending on the authority of the body. For example, this committee estimated costs for SB 110 (Romero, 2008) - which was charged with developing mandatory sentencing guidelines and significant tasks, such as preparing inmate population projections, developing recommendations on how best to comply in the event a court orders a reduction in the state's inmate population, providing training to criminal justice practitioners, conducting research, and developing materials, information systems and annual reports to the Legislature - would be in the range of $2.5 million, with a staff of about 20. 2)Prospective costs/savings due to actions of the body cannot be determined, though it is likely a non-politicized sentencing commission, using evidence-based practices and models, could recommend a sentencing/parole scheme that results in significant net state savings. COMMENTS AB 1376 Page 2 1)Rationale . The author's intent is to create a nonpartisan independent sentencing review body to address California's well known prison travails, much of which can be attributed to haphazard sentencing law. According to the author, "AB 1376 seeks to create an independent, multi-jurisdictional body to work on policy issues related to the state's criminal justice system. It is anticipated that such a body could work on issues ranging from the state's sentencing structure to what needs to be done to curtail the cycle of recidivism. Our current criminal justice sentencing structure leads to seriously overcrowded facilities, financial constraints, an inability to deliver reentry services and high recidivism rates. California needs to step back and comprehensively look at our system. A sentencing entity could review our codes; look at individual sentences, policies and programs that are successful or unsuccessful in other states; incarceration and alternatives, as well as rehabilitation and public safety." 2)This measure needs considerable development in terms of objectives, appointments, timelines and authority. 3)Sentencing history/background . Until 1976, California operated under the indeterminate sentencing law (ISL). Judges had considerable discretion to impose sentences within broadly defined ranges, and parole authorities had almost complete discretion to release inmates before the expiration of the imposed sentence. In 1976, academics and policymakers, conservatives and liberals, united in their opposition to this system, condemning it for a lack of uniformity, proportionality, and transparency. The left contended no one could get out of prison; the right contended anyone could get out of prison. In reaction to ISL discontent, in 1976, California enacted a determinate sentencing law (DSL), which grouped crimes into categories, with each category tied to a sentencing 'triad' containing a high, middle, and low sentence. The law directed judges presumptively to impose the middle sentence or, if justified by aggravating or mitigating factors, the higher or lower sentence. The DSL also abolished discretionary parole release. AB 1376 Page 3 Now, some 30 years later, there is increasing sentiment among policymakers and academics that California's DSL has created a correctional system plagued by overcrowding and unsafe conditions. The right contends DSL releases inmates who are not ready; the left contends DSL prevents the release of inmates who are ready. As evidenced by the more than two dozen states that have formed or are in the process of forming sentencing commissions, with varying degrees of authority and success, the current policy direction appears to favor an independent, depoliticized commission, drawing on a broad spectrum of policy expertise. Some commissions have created or recommended sentencing systems that use both ISL and DSL; for example, ISL for the most serious and violent offenders, and DSL for property offenders. (In 1980, Minnesota pioneered the sentencing guideline structure. Minnesota's sentencing commission was tasked with developing guidelines that would take effect unless voted down by the Legislature. Minnesota's commission specifies presumptive sentences through legally binding guidelines. The guidelines, also, however, authorize substantial trial court discretion to deviate from presumptive sentences in cases with extraordinary circumstances. When judges deviate from the presumptive sentence, they must explain for the record why they deviated from the guidelines and there is an appellate review mechanism for these cases.) 4)CDCR in Crisis . The state prison population is 167,000, in space designed for a maximum of about 150,000. As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into several consent decrees to improve prison conditions. As these cases have continued over several years, however, prison conditions have failed to improve and scrutiny of the federal courts over California's prisons has intensified. In February 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to take over the direct management and operation of the prison medical health care delivery system from the state. Medical, mental health and dental care programs at CDCR are all under varying levels of federal court supervision. In February 2009 a panel of three federal judges deemed the state's latest efforts to address overcrowding and unconstitutional conditions (via new construction and program enhancements in AB 900) insufficient and stated that AB 1376 Page 4 "plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that crowding is the primary cause of the underlying constitutional violations. No party contests that California's prisons are overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered in comparison to prisons in other states or jails within this state. There are simply too many prisoners for the existing capacity?. "We therefore tentatively conclude that there is no relief other than a prisoner release order that can remedy the constitutionally inadequate medical and mental health care in California's prisons." 5)Prior Legislation . a) AB 160 (Lieber, 2008) established the California Sentencing Commission to devise sentencing guidelines. AB 160 died on the Senate Inactive File. b) SB 110 (Romero, 2008) created a sentencing commission to revise rules and penalties imposed for specified crimes unless rejected by the Legislature in statute. SB 110 died on the Assembly Floor. c) ABx2 14 (Lieber, 2006) established a sentencing commission to devise sentencing guidelines. ABx2 14 was never heard. d) AB 2152 (Goldberg, 2004) established a sentencing commission to devise sentencing guidelines. AB 2152 was substantially amended when it reached the Senate and was subsequently vetoed. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081