BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2590|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2590
Author: Weber (D), et al.
Amended: 8/15/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/28/16
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-24, 5/27/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Sentencing: restorative justice
SOURCE: California Catholic Conference
California Industrial Areas Foundation
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
PICO California
DIGEST: This bill revises existing legislative declarations
concerning the purpose of imprisonment to instead state that the
purpose of sentencing is public safety achieved through
punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice, as
specified.
ANALYSIS:
AB 2590
Page 2
Existing law:
1)Contains legislative findings and declarations 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 §
1170(a)(1).)
2)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."
(Penal Code § 1170(a)(2).)
This bill:
1)Revises these findings and declarations to state legislative
findings and declarations that the purpose of sentencing is
public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation and
restorative justice, and that when a sentence of incarceration
is imposed, this purpose is best served by providing
opportunities for rehabilitation and terms proportionate to
the seriousness of the offense, as declared in current law.
2)Revises these declarations to recast this language to include
references to offenders eligible for educational and
rehabilitative programming, as specified.
AB 2590
Page 3
Background
There has been a focus at every level of the criminal justice
system in California on reducing recidivism. To that end,
criminal courts are incorporating more sentencing options that
may involve varying degrees of incapacitation, reentry
preparation and community supervision. Frequently, such
sentencing approaches attempt to address the underlying issues
connected to the defendant's criminal behavior. "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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
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 eligible offenders (potentially 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
(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
AB 2590
Page 4
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.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/11/16)
California Catholic Conference (co-source)
California Industrial Areas Foundation (co-source)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (co-source)
PICO California (co-source)
A New Path
Bishop of Sacramento Jaime Soto
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California Public Defenders Association
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Council of Jewish Women
Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference
Placer People of Faith Together
Sacramento Area Congregation Together
Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools
Unitarian Universalist Justice Ministry of California
West Coast Mennonite Central Committee
One individual
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/11/16)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
AB 2590
Page 5
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 47-24, 5/27/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina,
Mullin, Nazarian, Olsen, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood,
Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Chang, Dahle,
Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey,
Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Obernolte, Patterson,
Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Brough, Brown, Chiu, Daly, Dodd, Grove,
Hadley, Melendez, O'Donnell
Prepared by:Alison Anderson / PUB. S. /
8/15/16 20:22:24
**** END ****