BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2590
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2590 (Weber) - As Amended April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill:
1)Deletes the existing legislative findings and declarations
that the purpose of imprisonment is punishment, and instead
finds and declares that the purpose of sentencing is public
safety achieved through accountability, rehabilitation, and
restorative justice. It also finds that programs should be
available for inmates, including but not limited to,
AB 2590
Page 2
educational programs that are designed to prepare all, rather
than specifically non-violent felony offenders for successful
reentry into the community.
2)Encourages the development of policies and programs designed
to educate and rehabilitate all offenders, and the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to allow all inmates
the opportunity to enroll in programs that promote successful
return to the community.
3)Deletes the sunset language of the statute that would have
made the statute in-operative on January 1, 2017, and
indefinitely extends the authority granting the court
discretion in determining the sentence, and replaces the word
"punishment" with the word "sentence" in this statute.
FISCAL EFFECT:
No cost.
COMMENTS:
1)Background/Purpose This bill would find and declare that the
purpose of sentencing is public safety achieved through
accountability, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
"Restorative justice" is a concept which gives priority to
repairing the harm done to victims and communities, and
offender accountability is defined in terms of assuming
responsibility and taking action to repair harm. Within that
general framework, programs involving restorative justice can
encompass a wide variety of approaches.
According to the author, "[This bill] is a modest but
AB 2590
Page 3
important step to move California's criminal laws away from a
system that relies solely upon incarceration and punishment.
While current law assumes that punishment (i.e., prison) is
the only legitimate response to crime, AB 2590 recognizes that
alternatives to incarceration, including restorative justice
solutions, may sometimes be appropriate. Restorative justice
provides an opportunity for the offender to accept
responsibility, acknowledge the harm, make agreements to
repair the damages as much as possible and clarify future
intentions. This is similar to mediation, but has a broad
purpose, to address the needs of the victim as well as repair
the damaged relationship. Restorative justice agreements
include the development of a circle of support and
accountability to increase the likelihood that all agreements
are completed."
In the wake of prison overcrowding and Criminal Justice
Realignment, there has been a focus at every level of the
criminal justice system on alternatives to custody and
evidence based practices to reduce recidivism. To that end,
criminal courts are incorporating more sentencing options that
do not involve custody. Frequently, such sentencing
approaches attempt to address the underlying issues connected
to the defendant's criminal behavior.
2)Support. The California Public Defenders Association argues
that existing law provides legislative findings and
declarations that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is
punishment, and AB 2590 would instead provide legislative
findings and declarations that the purpose of sentencing is
public safety achieved through restorative justice.
3)Opposition. According to The California District Attorneys
Association, "California's current sentencing laws exist to
ensure that terms of imprisonment reflect the seriousness of
the offense and the offender's criminal history, and to
promote uniformity in sentencing such that similar conduct
AB 2590
Page 4
results in similar punishment. AB 2590 turns that notion on
its head, suggesting courts should instead consider a variety
of factors that attempt to explain away someone's criminal
behavior and absolve them of full accountability if they
happen to have come from a less fortunate background.
4)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 463 (Pavley), Chapter 508, Statutes of 2013, extended
to January 1, 2017, the provisions of law that provide that
the court shall, in its discretion, impose the term or
enhancement that best serves the interests of justice.
b) AB 1849 (Carter), Legislative Session of 2011-2012,
would have authorized the juvenile court of a county to
adopt a restorative justice program to address the needs of
minors, victims, and the community. AB 1849 was held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
c) AB 446 (Carter), Legislative Session of 2011-2012, would
have authorized a county to adopt a restorative justice
program to address the needs of minors, victims, and the
community. AB 446 was vetoed by the governor, in part, he
stated, "the courts already have the authority to create
such programs. ? the decision to adopt this kind of program
is better left to the sound discretion of judges."
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 2590
Page 5