BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 224 Hearing Date: April 7, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 19, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Elderly Parole Program
HISTORY
Source: Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Legal
Services for Prisoners with Children
Prior Legislation:None applicable
Support: A New PATH; AllCare Alliance; American Civil Liberties
Union; American Friends Service Committee; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Catholic
Conference; California Partnership; California Public
Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and
Justice; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice;
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice;
Courage Campaign; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights;
FACTS EDUCATION and PROJECTS; Fair Chance Project;
Friends Committee on Legislation of California;
Justice Now; Life Support Alliance; Los Angeles
Community Action Network; Prison Law Office; Prison
Policy Initiative; Sisters of St. Joseph of
Carondelet; Western Regional Advocacy Project; several
individuals
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; California
State Sheriffs' Association
SB 224 (Liu ) PageB
of?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to codify court-ordered elderly
parole by reducing the age from 60 to 50 and the time that must
be served in prison from 25 to 15 years.
Existing law provides that in the case of any inmate sentenced
to an indeterminate sentence the Board of Parole Hearings (the
Board) shall meet with each inmate during the sixth year prior
to the inmate's eligible parole release date for the purposes of
reviewing and documenting the inmates activities and conduct
pertinent to both parole eligibility and to the granting and
withholding of postconviction credit. (Penal Code § 3041(a))
Existing law provides that one year prior to the inmates minimum
eligible parole release date a panel of two or more
commissioners or deputy commissioners shall meet with the inmate
and shall normally set a parole release date. (Penal Code §
3041(a))
Existing law provides that the release date shall be sent in a
manner that will provide uniform terms for offenses of similar
gravity and magnitude with respect to their threat to the
public, and that will comply with the sentencing rules that the
Judicial Council may issue and any sentencing information
relevant to the setting of the parole release dates. The Board
shall establish criteria for the setting of parole release dates
and in doing so shall consider the number of victims of crime
for which the inmate was sentenced and other factors in
mitigation or aggravation of the crime. (Penal Code § 3041 (a))
Existing law provides that one year prior to the inmate's
minimum eligible parole release date a panel of two or more
commissioners or deputy commissioners shall again meet with the
inmate, hall except as provided, normally set a parole release
date as provided in Section 3041.5. (Penal Code § 3041(a))
According to the Three-judge Court order filed February 10, 2014
the CDCR must "[f]inalize and implement a new parole process
whereby inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served
a minimum of twenty-five years of their sentence will be
referred to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine
suitability for parole." (February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-0520
SB 224 (Liu ) PageC
of?
LKK DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown)
This bill provides that a prisoner shall be considered for
parole under the Elderly Parole Program if she or she meets both
of the following conditions:
The prisoner is 50 years of age or older; and,
The prisoner has served 15 years of continued
incarcerations on his or her sentence including time served
prior to sentencing.
This bill provides that when considering the release of a
prisoner under elderly parole the board shall give special
consideration to whether age, time served, and diminished
physical condition, if any have reduced the elderly prisoner's
risk for future violence.
This bill provides that elderly parole does not apply to
prisoners sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life without
the possibility of parole.
This bill contains uncodified legislative findings.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
SB 224 (Liu ) PageD
of?
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 224 seeks to codify the existing Elderly Parole
Program, implemented by the Brown Administration
SB 224 (Liu ) PageE
of?
following the three-judge panel decision in Coleman v.
Brown (2013). This program could be eliminated at any
time at CDCR's discretion. The bill also expands the
eligibility criteria for inmates to be considered for
parole from age 60 years and older and having served
25 years on their current sentence, to age 50 years
and older and having served 15 years on their current
sentence.
According to a 2012 ACLU report, there is a
long-standing consensus among correctional experts and
criminologists that "50 years of age is the
appropriate point marking when a prisoner becomes
"aging" or "elderly."<1> The National Institute of
Corrections (NIC) has also used this cutoff in
determining what age constitutes "elderly" prisoners.
The human and financial cost of incarcerating elders
is astronomical. Incarcerating elderly prisoners ages
50 years and older each year in the United States
costs approximately twice as much compared to other
age groups.<2> California alone spends approximately
$55,000 a year for every inmate that is
incarcerated.<3> And in 2014, health care costs
comprised the second largest area of prison spending
in California; approximately 29% of the state's prison
budget (LAO, 2014).<4> Additionally, due to the
accumulative impact of day-to-day conditions in
prisons, such as high levels of stress, less access to
nutritional food, and increased exposure to chronic
illness, studies have shown that incarcerated people
are roughly ten to fifteen years older physiologically
----------------------
<1>
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/elderlyprisonreport_20120613_1.
pdf
<2> Ibid.
<3> CalFacts, December 2014, LAO.
<4> CalFacts, December 2014, LAO.
SB 224 (Liu ) PageF
of?
than they are chronologically.<5> Consequently, these
individuals can be expected to suffer from more
advanced diseases than their non-incarcerated peers,
with treatment and health care costs projected in the
millions for elderly prisoners.
The elderly inmate population tends to have lower
recidivism rates as compared to the general prison
population. According to CDCR, in 2012 felony arrests
in California for individuals ages 50 and older were
among the lowest percentage of all felony arrests for
all age groups (for ages 50-59, 7.67% and for ages
60-69, 1.73%). Parolees ages 50 years and older who
were re-incarcerated for parole violations was
significantly lower, as compared to other age groups:
8.0% for ages 50-59 and 1.0% for ages 60-69.
States across the nation are dealing with growing and
aging prison populations and the accompanying budget
impacts. At least 15 states and the District of
Columbia have defined a process for releasing older
persons from prison. SB 224 allows California to
follow this national trend by modeling Maryland's
Geriatric Parole Program, which requires prisoners to
have served 15 years until they can be eligible for
the parole. (Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 14-101(g)).
Codifying the current elder parole process and
expanding it to reach incarcerated elders ages 50
years and older who have served 15 consecutive years
in prison is a reasonable step towards reducing the
cost and overcrowding issues associated with
California's prisons. SB 224 furthers the narrative of
treating our aging population humanely and
compassionately in addition to relieving the burden of
imprisonment on taxpayers and the families of older
prisoners
2. Elderly Parole
In Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown in which the plaintiffs are
---------------------------
<5>
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/elderlyprisonreport_20120613_1.
pdf
SB 224 (Liu ) PageG
of?
seeking a reduction in the California prison population, the
Three-Judge Court Order of February 10, 2014 required CDCR to
create an "elderly parole" program in which prisoners who have
reached the age of 60 and served 25 years will be considered for
parole. The elderly parole hearings began on October 1, 2014.
CDCR's February 2015 status report in response to the February
10, 2014 court order states the progress of the elderly parole
program stating:
Parole process for inmates 60 years of age or older
having served at least 25 years: The Board continues
to schedule eligible inmates for hearings who were not
already in the Board's hearing cycle, including
inmates sentenced to determinate terms. The Board has
scheduled 549 hearings for inmates eligible for
elderly parole, resulting in 115 grants, 247 denials,
and 26 stipulations to unsuitability. The remaining
159 scheduled cases were waived by the inmate,
postponed, continued, or cancelled. ."(Defendants'
February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown).
The age 60 was determined because there is a significant
reduction in crimes committed by those over 60. According to
felony arrest and CDCR admissions data by age:
In California, individuals age 60 or over were
responsible for the lowest percentage of all felony
arrests of all age groups in 2012, with the exception
of children under the age of 10. Individuals age 60
or over were responsible for 1.9% of all felony
arrests.
While the data shows that there are still 32,980 felony arrests
of people 50-59 years of age those numbers drop 7,454 at age 60.
(http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/docs/Policy/2012_California_Arrest_a
nd_CDCR_Admissions_Data_by_Age_Final.pdf)
3. Codification of Elderly Parole
As noted by the author, currently the elderly parole program is
in response to the court order and could be stopped by CDCR at
any time after the order is lifted. This bill would codify an
SB 224 (Liu ) PageH
of?
elderly parole program for persons who have reached the age of
50 and have served 15 years in prison.
The sponsor, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children point to
a report by the National Institute of Corrections which defines
elderly prisoners as those 50 years of age and older as the
rationale for lowering the age to 50 years old. (US Department
of Justice, National Institute of Corrections An Administrative
Overview of the Older Inmate, August 1992) Prison Law Office,
and other supporters also note:
The human and financial cost of incarcerating elders
is astronomical. California may spend two to three
times more on elder prisoners, with age-related costs
beginning to accumulate at 50 years old, with costs as
height as $1,000,000 a year per person for acute care.
Furthermore, older people have significantly lower
arrest rates. In 2001, the federal arrest rate for
persons aged 40 to 44 was .73%. This rate decreases by
half every five years dropping to .46% for person
45-49. For elders 50-54 years old, the arrest rate
plummets to .26%. There is also a lower risk of
recidivism for older prisoners age 50 and older.
Along with reducing the age for elderly parole, this bill
reduces the time that must be served lowering it from 25 years
in the current program to 15 years. The author may wish to
consider having the length of time served be 25 years for those
who have been sentenced under the three-strikes provisions of
the law in order to avoid any potential legal conflicts with
that initiative.
4. Opposition
The California Sheriffs' Association opposes this bill stating:
Preliminarily, it should be noted that the state
prison population is below the court-ordered benchmark
of 137.5 percent of design capacity. As such, we
question whether any additional population reduction
measures are warranted at this time. However, we are
SB 224 (Liu ) PageI
of?
particularly concerned with your measure as it would
undermine the lawfully imposed sentences of those
convicted of murder and violent sexual offenses.
While we recognize the recidivism rate of criminal
offenders drops off significantly as offenders age,
the likelihood of reoffending is not the sole basis to
consider whether someone should be eligible for
parole. We think providing for mandatory parole
consideration for all offenders that simply reach the
age of 50 will undermine the criminal justice system
and negatively impact the lives of victims that will
be notified of an offender's potential release
-- END -