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