BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 759|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 759
Author: Anderson (R) and Hancock (D), et al.
Amended: 8/1/16
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/28/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning
NOES: Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE FLOOR: 29-7, 6/3/15
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block, De
León, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez,
Hertzberg, Hill, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire,
Mendoza, Monning, Moorlach, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski,
Wolk
NOES: Fuller, Huff, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella, Hueso, Mitchell, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-31, 8/4/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Prisoners: segregation housing
SOURCE: Friends Committee on Legislation of California
DIGEST: This bill requires the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish regulations
to allow specified inmates placed in segregated housing to earn
credits, as specified.
SB 759
Page 2
Assembly Amendments deleted reference to "Security Housing Unit,
Psychiatric Services Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or an
Administrative Segregation Unit" and, instead refers to the
units as "segregation housing".
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Creates in state government the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), to be headed by a
secretary, who shall be appointed by the Governor, subject to
Senate confirmation, and shall serve at the pleasure of the
Governor. (Government Code § 12838.) CDCR shall consist of
Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Health Care Services,
Juvenile Justice, the Board of Parole Hearings, the State
Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison Industry Authority,
and the Prison Industry Board. (Id.)
2)Allows CDCR to place an inmate in the Security Housing Unit
(SHU) if the inmate has been deemed a threat to the safety of
others or the security of the institution. (15 CCR 3341.5.)
Under existing regulations, inmates can be assigned to the SHU
for a determinate or indeterminate term. (Id.) An inmate
who has been validated as a gang member can be placed in the
SHU for an indeterminate term. (Id.)
3)States that a person who is placed in a SHU, Psychiatric
Services Unit (PSU), Behavioral Management Unit (BMU), or an
Administrative Segregation Unit for specified misconduct or
upon validation as a prison gang member or associate is
ineligible to earn credits pursuant to Section 2933 or 2933.05
during the time he or she is in the SHU, Psychiatric Services
Unit, Behavioral Management Unit, or the Administrative
Segregation Unit for that misconduct, as specified. (Penal
Code § 2933.6.)
This bill repeals the existing credit provisions and instead
authorizes CDCR to establish regulations to allow specified
SB 759
Page 3
inmates placed in segregation housing to earn credits during the
time he or she is in segregation housing.
Background
On October 9, 2013, the Assembly and Senate Public Safety
Committees held an informational hearing on California's prison
segregation policies. The committees heard from representatives
from CDCR and the Office of the Inspector General, experts,
advocates and even individuals who had been housed in the SHU.
Among the experts was Margaret Winter, the head of the American
Civil Liberties Union prison project, she:
[T]old lawmakers the tide is turning nationally when
it comes to use of isolation in prisons.
"Every reputable study has found negative effects,"
Winter said, noting that when she helped the
Mississippi Department of Corrections reduce its use
of isolation, prison violence actually went down.
Asked for alternative methods for dealing with inmates
who pose a danger to other inmates or staff, Winter
said segregation can be an effective short-term tool,
if paired with incentives to change behavior. Most
prison systems simply let inmates languish in
isolation without even determining if they're still a
threat, Winter said.
(Legislators Hear Testimony on California Prison Conditions in
Isolation, Rina Palta, Southern California Public Radio, October
9, 2013. http://www.scpr.org/
news/2013/10/09/39735/ca-legislature-to-hold-hearing-on-condition
s-in-pr/.)
On February 11, 2014, another joint informational hearing was
held to discuss CDCR's new policies and the impact that the
policy has had on the SHU population. Committee members heard
from CDCR representatives, experts and attorneys who represent
SHU inmates. Hope Metcalf, Associate Research Scholar in Law,
SB 759
Page 4
Director of Arthur Liman Program, and Lecturer in Law, Yale Law
School, stated in the hearing:
[T]he basic bottom line is that staff and inmates must
feel safe and prisons do need tools to shape behavior.
I don't think that there's much dispute about that.
And in fact, some forms of short-term segregation may
be necessary and there may indeed be some portions of
the population for whom placement in the general
population is not appropriate. However, that does not
translate in any sense to the fact that long-term
isolation of the ilk that we see at Pelican Bay is in
fact serving sound, public policy.
So given the overreliance on isolation, many prisons
are at best delaying problems, and, in fact, may be
aggravating them. So I do not wish to say that most
people released from long-term isolation are
dangerous. I have many, many clients who have left
isolation and they have gone on to do well. However,
I do think that if we're talking about public safety,
thinking about outcomes, including recidivism is
important. Equally important of course in terms of
outcomes is not just whether or not someone is
violent, but whether they are able to flourish and
become independent once they leave. So the fear
is-one fear I've had-is even where outcomes don't show
for example violence, is that person able to hold a
job or are they now so debilitated that they are
reduced to relying on state support once they leave
prison?
(California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's
Proposed New Policies on Inmate Segregation: The Promise and
Imperative of Real Reform, Hearing Transcript, Assembly and
Senate Public Safety Committees Joint Informational Hearing,
February 11, 2014. http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/sites
/spsf.senate.ca.gov/files/Jt.%20Hearing%20Transcript%202-11-14.pd
f.)
In summary, this hearing highlighted the widely held principle
that while short term segregation is an important tool, long
SB 759
Page 5
term segregation can have a detrimental impact not only on
inmates but also on overall public safety.
Under existing law, a person who is placed in segregation
housing is ineligible to earn credits. This bill seeks to allow
these inmates to earn good time credits.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, the
fiscal impact includes:
1)One-time costs to CDCR in the $100,000 (GF) range to
promulgate regulations.
2)Unknown GF savings to the extent earned credits reduce time
served by individuals formerly unable to earn credits.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/4/16)
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (source)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Friends Service Committee
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
Youth Justice Coalition
1 Individual
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/4/16)
None received
SB 759
Page 6
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 41-31, 8/4/16
AYES: Achadjian, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez,
Low, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,
Wood, Rendon
NOES: Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
Cooper, Dahle, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove,
Hadley, Harper, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas,
Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Williams
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Chávez, Cooley, Daly, Roger Hernández,
Jones, Olsen, Rodriguez
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
8/5/16 10:20:14
**** END ****