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 ****