BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 261 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hancock |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 24, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Youth Offender Parole Hearings
HISTORY
Source: Human Rights Watch
Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Youth Justice Coalition
Prior Legislation:SB 260 (Hancock) - Chapter 312, Stats. 2013
Support: Newt Gingrich; San Francisco District Attorney's
Office; California Catholic Conference, Inc.; Ella
Baker Center for Human Rights; The California Public
Defenders Association; Life Support Alliance; The
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership; Islamic
Shura Council of Southern California; National
Compadres Network; Public Counsel; Project Kinship;
Youth Law Center; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice;
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety; Post-Conviction
Justice Project; Office of Restorative Justice
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand the youth offender parole
process, a parole process for persons sentenced to lengthy
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageB
of?
prison terms for crimes committed before attaining 18 years of
age, to include those who have committed their crimes before
attaining the age of 23.
Existing law creates the youth offender parole hearing which is
a hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of
reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was under
18 years of age at the time of his or her controlling offense.
(Penal Code § 3051)
Existing law provides that the timing for the youth offender
parole hearing depends on the sentence: if the controlling
offense was a determinate sentence the offender shall be
eligible for release after 15 years; if the controlling offense
was a life term less than 25 years then the person is eligible
for release after 20 years; and, if the controlling offense was
25 years or more then the person is eligible for release after
25 years. (Penal Code § 3051 (b).)
Existing law provides that if the youth offender is found
suitable for parole at the youthful offender parole hearing then
the youth offender shall be released on parole. (Penal Code §
3051 (e).)
Existing law provides that in reviewing a prisoner's suitability
for parole in a youthful offender parole hearing, the Board of
Parole Hearings shall give great weight to the diminished
culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark
features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased
maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.
(Penal Code § 4801 (c).)
This bill expands those eligible for a youthful parole hearing
to those whose committing offense occurred before they reached
the age of 23.
This bill provides that those eligible for a youthful offender
parole hearing on the effective date of this bill shall have
their hearing by July 1, 2017.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageC
of?
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.
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
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageD
of?
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:
Science, law, and common sense support the
appropriateness of SB 260 youth offender parole
hearings for young adults between the age of 18 and
23.
Recent scientific evidence on adolescent and young
adult development and neuroscience shows that certain
areas of the brain-particularly those affecting
judgment and decision-making - do not fully develop
until the early - to mid-20s. Various studies by
researchers from Stanford University (2009),
University of Alberta (2011), and the National
Institute of Mental Health (2011) all confirm that the
process of brain development continues well beyond age
18.
This research has been relied on by judges and
lawmakers. The US and California Supreme Courts have
recognized in several recent opinions that adolescents
are still developing in ways relevant to their
culpability for criminal behavior and their special
capacity to turn their lives around.<1>
California already recognizes the uniqueness of young
adults in its Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).
DJJ is mandated to detain and provide services and
programming to some young adults until age 23. The
----------------------
<1> See: Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005); Miller v.
Alabama, 567 US __ (2012); People v. Caballero, 55 Cal. 4th 262
(Cal. 2012); People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal. 4th 1354 (Cal. 2014).
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageE
of?
state has recognized early adulthood as a vulnerable
period in other arenas as well, for example, extending
foster care support beyond age 18 to age 21 in AB 12
(Beall, 2010). As recently as 2013, the Legislature
passed AB 1276 (Bloom), which provided special
protections and opportunities for young adults through
age 22 entering prison.
2. Youthful Offender Parole Hearings
On April 15, 2015 the State filed its most recent status report
in response to the Three-Judge panel. The report set forth the
status of cases brought under SB 260 (Hancock) which created
youthful offender parole hearings:
The State continues to implement Senate Bill 260
(2013), which allows inmates whose crimes were
committed as minors to appear before the Board of
Parole Hearings (the Board) to demonstrate their
suitability for release after serving at least fifteen
years of their sentence. From January 1, 2014 through
March 31, 2015, the Board held 534 youth offender
hearings, resulting in 158 grants, 328 denials, 46
stipulations to unsuitability, and 2 split votes that
required referral to the full Board for further
consideration. An additional 225 were scheduled
during this time period, but were waived, postponed,
continued, or cancelled. All available inmates who
were immediately eligible for a hearing when the law
took effect on January 1, 2014, have had a hearing
date or have one scheduled on or before July 1, 2015,
as required by the terms of Senate Bill 260. In
addition, nearly all youth offenders who received a
prior to January 1, 2014, have reached their minimum
eligible parole dates and have been processed for
release from their life term by the Board."
(Defendants' April 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).
3. Crimes Committed Before The Offender Was 23
This bill expands those eligible for a youthful parole hearing
to those whose committing offense occurred before they reached
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageF
of?
the age of 23.
Human Rights Watch, the co-sponsors of this bill, argues that:
Neuro-scientific research finds that the process of
cognitive brain development continues into early
adulthood - well beyond the age 18. For boys and young
men especially this development process continues into
the mid-20s. The still-developing areas of the brain,
particularly those that affect judgment and
decision-making, are highly relevant to criminal
behavior and culpability.
Supporter National Center for Youth Law further argues this
point stating:
The latest scientific evidence on adolescent
development supports justification for SB 261.
Research shows that certain areas of the brain, in
particularly those that affect judgment and
decision-making, do not fully develop until the early
20's. This is confirmed in studies by Stanford
University (2009), University of Alberta (2011), and
the National Institute of Mental Health (2011). The
Fact that young adults are still developing means they
are uniquely situated for personal growth. SB 261
would continue the SB 260 trend towards reflecting the
latest scientific evidence on young adult development
by recognizing that young adults who were under the
age of 23 at the time of their crime have an
especially strong ability to grow.
Former US Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich
echoes the argument that these offenders have a capacity for
growth both in his letter in support and in an editorial in the
Huffington Post on April 13, 2015. He states:
It's only fair to recognize the difference between
young- and full-grown adults in sentencing, just as we
draw a distinction between juveniles and adults.
People who commit offenses before their capacities are
fully formed deserve a second chance -- an opportunity
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageG
of?
for a parole hearing if they mature, rehabilitate, and
pay serious restitution to their victims and to the
community.
SB 261 is compassionate, fair, and backed up by the
latest scientific understanding of brain development.
But it is also by no means lenient. To be eligible
for a hearing, the bill would require that a young
person must have served at least 15 years of his or
her sentence, and even longer for more serious crimes.
This is no small amount of time for young adult -- it
means spending a period of potentially more than half
their lives at sentencing behind bars.
If young adults demonstrate real personal growth,
rehabilitation, and remorse, they should have the
opportunity to be eligible for a parole hearing after
spending a very long period of time in prison. The
California legislature should pass SB 261 to give them
this opportunity -- and other states across the
country should look to it as a model for making the
criminal-justice system more fair, as well as more
efficient.
The District of San Francisco has also recognized that these
young offenders are not quite juveniles but not adults. In his
support of this bill he states:
In the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, our
Alternative Sentencing Planner - the first of its kind
in the nation - takes a deep look at our cases to
understand the risks and needs of the individual
defendants. One theme that has emerged in this work
is the difficulty of developing appropriate case
dispositions for young adults, who have one leg in
adolescence and one in adulthood. These young men and
women are disproportionately represented in our adult
justice system - and often fare poorly in that system,
which lacks developmentally responsive interventions.
As a result, I and other local criminal justice
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageH
of?
leaders have begun the essential work of developing a
Young Adult Court that will handle criminal cases for
individuals ages 18-25. We recognize that in many
ways our current criminal system is not well suited to
this unique age group and that we must implement
reforms to improve outcomes for both the individuals
themselves and the safety of our communities.
Even though arguably the neurological development continues to
age 25 or beyond, the author expands youthful parole hearings in
this bill to the age of 23 because that is the age in which a
person can remain in the Youth Authority in California.
4. Opposition
The California District Attorneys Association opposes this bill
stating:
The California Supreme Court ruled in People v.
Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 282 that a juvenile
offender sentenced to a de facto term of life
imprisonment must be afforded a "meaningful
opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated
maturity and rehabilitation." The Court additionally
urged the Legislature to "enact legislation
establishing a parole eligibility mechanism that
provides a defendant serving a de facto life sentence
without possibility of parole for non-homicide crimes
that he or she committed as a juvenile with the
opportunity to obtain release on a showing of
rehabilitation and maturity."
The key phrase in that opinion is "committed as a
juvenile." All of the major existing case law on
juveniles who receive long sentences (Miller v.
Alabama, 567 U.S. ____ (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560
U.S. ____ (2010); and Caballero itself) involves
individuals who were under 18 at the time of their
offense, and received a lengthy prison sentence. We
are unaware of any case law under which courts have
considered someone a juvenile for an offense committed
after they turned 18, but before they reached 23 years
of age.
SB 261 (Hancock ) PageI
of?
We believe that it is wholly inappropriate to expand
this expedited parole process to include individuals
who were adults when they committed their offenses.
This bill isn't aimed at instances where a juvenile
offender is charged as an adult - that was taken care
of in SB 260. Instead, these are adults prosecuted in
adult court, for very serious offenses that result in
lengthy state prison commitments.
-- END -