BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1593
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1593 (Ma) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), when
reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole, to give "great
weight" (current law requires BPH to "consider") to any
information or evidence that, at the time of the crime that
occurred prior to August 29, 1996, the inmate experienced
intimate partner battering (IPB). This bill also:
1)Requires BPH to include in its annual report to the
Legislature and the Governor on related cases "specific and
detailed" findings of its investigations in cases where an
inmate experienced IPB at the time of the offense.
2)Specifies that an inmate's evidence of IPB cannot be used to
support a finding that she - or he - lacks insight into the
crime and its causes.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)To the extent additional emphasis on IPB results in earlier
parole dates, there would be ongoing, indeterminable GF
savings.
2)Minor absorbable costs to BPH to add additional detail to its
existing annual report.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to strengthen current parole
procedures regarding IPB, thereby increasing the odds for
recourse to rehabilitation for inmates who were abuse victims
AB 1593
Page 2
themselves.
In 1994, the Legislature enacted SB 499 (Burton) to give the
Board of Prison Terms (the predecessor agency to the BPH),
authority to consider IPB as a factor for parole suitability.
Under SB 499, BPH is required to report annually to the
Legislature and the governor on parole decisions involving
IPB.
The author contends the annual report is insufficient in terms
of the details of how the PPH evaluates the IPB evidence.
Moreover, according to the author, "Currently, when a domestic
violence victim is questioned by the parole board on the
crimes they committed, the victim often discusses the history
of their victimization and their prior abuse. The Parole
Board often considers this acknowledgement of victimization as
"lack of insight" and denies their parole."
2)Current law authorizes domestic violence victims to file
habeas corpus claims for crimes relating to IPB before January
1992 . The California Supreme Court, however, did not hear an
IPB case until August 29, 1996, in People v. Humphrey. This
bill amends the code to reflect the date of this decision.
3)The BPH report re IPB cases reviewed in 2011 is a five-line
chart that shows five cases . Three "Did not meet criteria",
one was "Unsubstantiated", and one was "Partially
substantiated".
4)Support .
a) According to the California Habeas Project, a coalition
formed to pursue justice for incarcerated domestic violence
victims, "AB 1593 will ensure that the Board of Parole
Hearings gives appropriate consideration to evidence of
domestic violence. Sometimes, when a survivor presents
evidence of IPBE Ýintimate partner battering and its
effects] at her parole hearing, BPH uses it as a reason
that she is unsuitable for parole. We have seen a number
of cases where due to a lack of understanding about
domestic violence, BPH has construed a survivor's
explanation of the link between her experience of abuse and
her involvement in the crime as 'lack of insight' into the
crime and its causes. Moreover, the bill will ensure that
BPH gives "great weight" to evidence of IPBE."
AB 1593
Page 3
b) According to the California Public Defenders
Association, "Too often, recommendations against parole
release are made solely due to the charge being
homicide-related while placing little weight on evidence
showing that the victim was a domestic violence victim
whose charge was directly related or a result of the
battering experience. AB 1593 steers the focus in the
right direction. The Board of Parole Hearings should not
merely consider but should accord great weight to the
reports of prison psychologists and other clinicians as
well as evidence existing from trial proceedings showing
that he individual being considered for parole suitability
was a victim of intimate partner battering and its effects
and the committing offense was related to the battering
experience.
5)Opposition . According to the California District Attorneys
Association, "Under existing law, BPH is required to consider
such information or evidence regarding IPB, but no bias toward
the impact of such is expressed. Additionally, existing law
(Penal Code section 1473.5) provides a special writ of habeas
corpus that may be prosecuted on the basis that expert
testimony relating to IPB and its effects was not received in
evidence at the trial court proceedings. In this regard, we
feel that existing law adequately addresses the impacts of
IPB."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081