BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 261
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 261
(Hancock) - As Amended June 1, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy | Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill expands the youth offender parole process, a parole
process for persons sentenced to lengthy 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. The
SB 261
Page 2
bill requires that those with indeterminate sentences who are
eligible for a youth offender parole hearing have their hearing
by July 1, 2017, and those with determinate sentences who are
eligible for a youth offender parole hearing have their hearing
by July 1, 2021, and have their consultation with the Board of
Parole Hearings (BPH) before July 1, 2017.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Significant one-time costs to the BPH of $1.3 million (General
Fund) to complete risk assessments and conduct parole hearings
for 800 inmates estimated to be eligible upon the bill's
effective date.
2)Significant ongoing annual costs, likely in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars or greater (General Fund), to conduct
hearings for inmates as they become eligible. The magnitude of
costs would be dependent upon the rate at which BPH conducts
hearings, as there is no timeframe mandated for prospectively
eligible inmates. The CDCR estimates an additional 5,600
inmates would be added to the BPH's hearing calendar over the
next several years. An additional 3,000 inmates are estimated
to be within the BPH's hearing cycle currently and would be
eligible to request to advance their next hearing date, as
specified.
3)One-time costs to BPH of about $100,000 to review and re-write
regulations.
4)Unknown state trial court savings as a result of an
accompanying reduction in writs of Habeas Corpus, by which
inmates challenge convictions and/or sentences.
5)Potential incarceration cost savings of $0.2 to $0.5 million
(General Fund) for every 20 to 50 inmates either released or
having their sentences reduced. Over ten years, the savings
could increase to $2 to $5 million assuming the inmates would
have served ten additional years.
SB 261
Page 3
6)Minor offsetting increase in parole costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "Much like the existing
youth offender process, SB 261 holds young people accountable
and responsible for what they did. They must serve a minimum
of 15 to 25 years in prison depending on their offense, and
must demonstrate remorse, maturity, and rehabilitation to be
suitable for parole."
"This reflects science, law, and common sense. Recent
neurological research shows that cognitive brain development
continues well beyond age 18 and into early adulthood. For
boys and young men in particular, this process continues into
the mid-20s. The parts of the brain that are still developing
during this process affect judgment and decision-making, and
are highly relevant to criminal behavior and culpability.
Recent US Supreme Court cases including Roper v. Simmons,
Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama recognize the
neurological difference between youth and adults. The fact
that youth are still developing makes them especially capable
of personal development and growth."
"The State of California recognizes this as well. State law
provides youth with foster care services until age 21. It
extends Division of Juvenile Justice jurisdiction until age
23. It also provides special opportunities for youth in our
state prison system through age 25.
"To be clear: SB 261 is by no means a 'free ticket' for
release. There is no mandate to a reduced sentence or release
SB 261
Page 4
on parole, only the opportunity for a parole hearing after
serving at least 15 to 25 years in state prison. Even after
that period there is no guarantee for a grant of parole. The
Board still has to examine each inmate's suitability for
parole, the criteria for which this bill does not change.
"SB 261 will give young adults in our prisons hope and
incentive to improve their lives."
2)Background. Current law establishes a process for youth
offender parole hearing by BPH 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.
Current law sets a deadline of July 1, 2015, for BPH to
complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals
who become entitled to have their parole suitability
considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective
date of the statute that established youth offender parole
hearings, SB 260 (Hancock), Chapter 312, Statutes of 2013.
This bill seeks to expand those eligible for a youth offender
parole hearing to those whose committing offense occurred
before they reached the age of 23. The rationale, as expressed
by the author and supporters of this bill, is that research
shows that cognitive brain development continues well beyond
age 18 and into early adulthood. The parts of the brain that
are still developing during this process affect judgment and
decision-making, and are highly relevant to criminal behavior
and culpability.
3)Argument in Support: According to the Anti-Recidivism
Coalition (ARC), a sponsor of this bill, "The California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) estimates
there are just over 16,000 people who were between 18-22 years
old at the time of their crimes and sentenced to prison terms
of 15 years or more. This bill has the potential to affect a
SB 261
Page 5
much larger population, while continuing to move toward a
system of rehabilitation. There is no question that people
who commit crimes should be held accountable, but punishment
should also reflect an individual's capacity for personal
growth and maturity. To do otherwise disregards the potential
for young adults to change and the dramatic physical and
psychological differences between young people and older
adults."
4)Argument in Opposition: According to the California District
Attorneys Association, "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 mechanism that provides a defendant
serving a de facto life sentence without the possibility of
parole for nonhomicide 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.'?
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."
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 261
Page 6