BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2590 (Weber) - Sentencing: restorative justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 19, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2590 would revise existing law declaring "the
purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment" to instead
declare that "the purpose of sentencing is public safety
achieved through accountability, rehabilitation, and restorative
justice." This bill would expand existing law declaring that
programs should be available to prepare nonviolent felony
offenders for reentry to instead declare that programs should be
available for all offenders to prepare them for successful
reentry into the community.
Fiscal
Impact:
CDCR : No direct state costs. Potential major future cost
pressure (General Fund) to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to develop and implement policies and
programs, allowing all offenders (extending beyond the
existing reference to nonviolent felony offenders) the
opportunity to enroll in programs that promote successful
reentry into the community.
Restorative justice : Potential major future cost pressure
AB 2590 (Weber) Page 1 of
?
(General Fund/Local Funds) to develop and implement strategies
to provide alternatives to punitive justice through a
victim-centered approach, including cooperative agreements
between agencies, facilitators over planning sessions, and the
provision of services both before and after incarceration. The
revision to the overarching purpose of sentencing to include
restorative justice, which is undefined in the bill, could
potentially result in substantial future investments to
various state and local agencies to develop and implement.
Some states have even created a separate agency to oversee the
restorative justice strategy and provide the services.
Long-term impacts : Potential future cost savings to the
courts, state/local law enforcement agencies and facilities
through reduced recidivism to the extent "restorative justice"
becomes successfully integrated into the criminal justice
system.
Background: Existing law provides that the legislature finds and declares
that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment and
that this purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate
to the seriousness of the offense while at the same time
providing for uniformity in sentences of offenders committing
the same offense under similar circumstances. (Penal Code (PC) §
1170(a)(1).)
Existing law provides that, " . . . the Legislature further
finds and declares that programs should be available for
inmates, including, but not limited to, educational programs,
that are designed to prepare nonviolent felony offenders for
successful reentry into the community. The Legislature
encourages the development of policies and programs designed to
educate and rehabilitate nonviolent felony offenders. In
implementing this section, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation is encouraged to give priority enrollment in
programs to promote successful return to the community to an
inmate with a short remaining term of commitment and a release
date that would allow him or her adequate time to complete the
program." (PC § 1170(a)(2).)
Proposed
Law: This bill would revise the existing legislative finding
AB 2590 (Weber) Page 2 of
?
and declaration that states, "the purpose of imprisonment for
crime is punishment," as follows:
Revises the existing legislative declaration to instead
provide that the purpose of "sentencing is public safety
achieved through accountability, rehabilitation, and
restorative justice."
Revises existing legislative declarations to state,
"When a sentence includes incarceration, this purpose is
best served by terms that are proportionate to the
seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in
the sentences of offenders committing the same offense
under similar circumstances."
Revises existing language to state that educational and
rehabilitative programing shall apply to "all offenders,"
instead of restricted to nonviolent felony offenders.
Deletes the paragraph's reference to CDCR being
encouraged to "give priority enrollment in programs," and
instead provides that CDCR is encouraged to "allow all
inmates the opportunity to enroll in programs that promote
successful return to the community."
Deletes from existing law the reference to "an inmate
with a short remaining term of commitment and a release
date that would allow him or her adequate time to complete
the program."
Further removes the word "punishment" from this section,
and replaces it with the word "sentence," as specified.
Related
Legislation: SB 1324 (Hancock) 2016 would revise existing
legislative findings and declarations to state that the purposes
of imprisonment for crime include rehabilitation in addition to
punishment. This bill has been ordered to the inactive file in
the Assembly.
Staff
Comments: This bill has no direct cost impact to the CDCR or
other state or local agencies. However, revising the overarching
legislatively stated purpose of sentencing to include
"restorative justice," which is undefined, creates potential
future cost pressure on the CDCR, as well as other state and
local agencies that may potentially be impacted by the future
development and implementation of a restorative justice
AB 2590 (Weber) Page 3 of
?
strategy, which is generally defined by the Center for Justice
and Reconciliation as, "a theory of justice that emphasizes
repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. It is best
accomplished through cooperative processes that include all
stakeholders. This can lead to transformation of people,
relationships and communities."
Prior budget acts and the recently enacted 2016 Budget Act have
included funding for programs that provide alternatives to
incarceration such as pre-trial diversion programs, however, in
the absence of a definition of "restorative justice," which can
encompass a wide variety of approaches, it is unclear whether
the programs and funding currently available and in place meet
the revised and intended statement of purpose.
As an example of varying approaches, in part one of a two-part
series released by the PEW Charitable Trusts, "Victims and
Offenders Come Together to Make Their Own Justice," (R. Beitsch,
Stateline, July 20, 2016), restorative justice is described as
follows:
Boulder [Colorado] is one of many places around the
country turning to restorative justice as an
alternative to prosecution and possible imprisonment.
Instead of fighting the charges in court, offenders
selected for restorative justice agree to accept
responsibility for their actions, meet face-to-face
with victims and come up with a plan to repair the harm
they've caused.
Thirty-five states have adopted legislation encouraging
the use of restorative justice for children and adults
both before and after prison, though many local law
enforcement departments have for years relied on local
nonprofits to perform the sessions without an official
blessing from the state.
As states step back from mass incarceration,
restorative justice is becoming more widespread and
formalized. Last year West Virginia set aside funding
AB 2590 (Weber) Page 4 of
?
for restorative justice and other alternatives to
incarceration in the juvenile justice system. Some
states, such as Vermont and Colorado, have passed laws
that encourage the use of the strategy statewide by
creating agencies that oversee or even provide the
service.
In the second of the two-part series, "Can Restorative Justice
Help Offenders Reintegrate Into Society?"(R. Beitsch, Stateline,
July 22, 2016), different approaches to restorative justice are
described as follows:
Restorative justice is used in many jurisdictions
before incarceration. This allows offenders to avoid
jail time for low-level crimes by meeting with their
victims to discuss the incident and how they can make
things right. But prison and parole offices are
increasingly adapting restorative justice programs to
help those who have committed serious and violent
crimes while they are in prison and as they reintegrate
society - sometimes without the participation of
victims or their families.
In the late 1990s, Vermont began setting up community
justice centers that hosted discussions between
low-level offenders and their victims. In 2006 the
centers began hosting "circles of support and
accountability" for high-risk offenders who had
committed serious crimes, such as sexual assault and
domestic violence, to help with re-entry. About 60
circles meet every week in Vermont. They match recently
released offenders with three or four people in the
community. Victims do not participate in the circles.
In Texas, which has one of the largest prison dialogue
programs in the country, the focus is entirely on the
victim rather than rehabilitating the offender. It must
be a victim who initiates the process, and each has his
or her own reasons for doing so, said Lauren Bledsoe,
who supervises victim-offender dialogues for Texas.
AB 2590 (Weber) Page 5 of
?
Though courts typically allow victims to file a victim
impact statement during trial, many say they leave the
process unsatisfied.
Setting up a dialogue takes months of work. Program
staff meets with both sides separately to prepare them
for the encounter. In Texas, participation is voluntary
for inmates and it is confidential, which means
prisoners cannot bring up their participation before
the parole board.
Recommended Amendments: For clarifying intent purposes, the
author may wish to consider an amendment to include a definition
of "restorative justice."
-- END --