BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 821 (Block) - Crimes: criminal threats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 14, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 2, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 821 would expand the scope of the existing criminal
threat statute to include threats to commit a crime at a
location or event that will result in death or great bodily
injury to another person, as specified. This bill would provide
that such a threat is an alternate felony-misdemeanor punishable
by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year, or by
imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, two years, or three
years.
Fiscal
Impact:
State prisons : Potential increase in state costs (General
Fund) for new commitments to state prison. For this offense,
DOJ statistics indicate over 4,600 felony arrests in 2015, and
CDCR admitted over 1,000 new commitments to prison. While the
impact cannot be projected with certainty, for every 1 percent
increase in annual commitments (10 commitments/year), state
costs of $435,000 per year are estimated based on the average
SB 821 (Block) Page 1 of
?
length of stay of 18 months for this offense.
County jails : Potentially significant increase in
non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and
incarceration for additional misdemeanor convictions, offset
to a degree by fine revenue. DOJ statistics indicate over
1,100 misdemeanor convictions for this offense in 2015.
Targeted events/locations : Potentially significant cost
savings to public/private entities, as well as law enforcement
agencies, to the extent the provisions of this bill reduce the
committal of such threats, thereby reducing the costs
associated with delays, cancellations, lockdowns, evacuations,
or closures.
Background: Existing law provides that "any person who willfully threatens
to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily
injury to another person, with the specific intent that the
statement, ? is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no
intent of actually carrying it out, which ? is so unequivocal,
unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the
person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate
prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that
person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety," is guilty
of an alternate felony-misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment
in county jail for up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or
both, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, two
years, or three years. (Penal Code § 422.)
Existing law prohibits threats to commit a crime directed at a
specific person, and the person suffers sustained fear as a
result of the threat. However, an individual who communicates a
threat to commit a crime at a location or event that is not
targeting a specific individual may not necessarily be subject
to criminal penalties under the existing criminal threat
statute.
A threat to commit a crime at a school campus made through the
use of social media is one such example of a threat that this
bill seeks to address. A 2015 study from the National School
Safety and Security Services found that threats made toward
school campuses have been increasing, with the majority of the
violent threats being shooting and/or bomb threats. Of the 812
threats that occurred nationally (California had the second most
SB 821 (Block) Page 2 of
?
of any state, with 60 threats) between August-December 2014, 37
percent of threats were made electronically, with 28 percent of
the electronically delivered threats conducted through social
media. The study also indicated that 30 percent of the threats
resulted in the evacuations of schools. Of note, at least 320
arrests were made as of the time of the study, the vast majority
of which were children between the ages of 8 and 18.
Proposed Law:
This bill would provide that any person who willfully threatens
to commit a crime at a location or event that will result in
death or great bodily injury to another person, with the
specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing,
or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be
taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually
carrying it out, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state
prison.
This bill provides that for purposes of this section, a person
threatens to commit a crime at a location or event, whether a
public or private location or event, if, on its face and under
the circumstances in which a threat is made, the threat is so
unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey
to a reasonable person perceiving the threat a gravity of
purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat,
such that the evacuation, lockdown, or closure of a location, or
the cancellation, evacuation, lockdown, or closure of an event
appears to be reasonably necessary for the protection of the
public.
Related
Legislation: SB 110 (Fuller) 2015 would have enacted a new
misdemeanor for threatening unlawful violence to another person
on a school campus or at a school-sponsored event, as specified.
SB 110 was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 456 (Block) 2015 would have enacted a new misdemeanor
prohibiting persons from threatening to discharge a firearm at a
school or at a location where a school-sponsored event is or
SB 821 (Block) Page 3 of
?
will be taking place, as specified. SB 456 was vetoed by the
Governor.
Both SB 110 and SB 456 received the following veto message from
the Governor:
No one could be anything but intolerant of threats to cause
great bodily injury, especially on school grounds. Certainly not
legislators, who voted nearly unanimously for this bill.
While I'm sympathetic and utterly committed to ensuring maximum
safety for California's school children, the offensive conduct
covered by this bill is already illegal.
In recent decades, California has created an unprecedented
number of new and detailed criminal laws. Before we keep
enacting more, I think we should pause and reflect on the fact
that our bulging criminal code now contains in excess of 5,000
separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of
human misbehavior.
Staff
Comments: By expanding the scope of the crime of willfully
threatening to commit a crime that will result in death or great
bodily injury to another person, the provisions of this bill
could result in increased state and local costs for
incarceration. The penalty for this offense as an alternate
felony-misdemeanor ranges from up to one year in county jail to
a state prison sentence of 16 months, two years or three years.
Statistics from the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicate over
4,600 felony arrests pursuant to PC § 422. Additionally, CDCR
data indicates over 1,000 commitments to state prison in 2015
under the criminal threat statute. The impact to the state
prison population cannot be estimated with certainty given the
numerous factors involved in charging and sentencing, including
but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial discretion, the
prior criminal history of the defendant, and the elements
specific to each case. However, for every one percent increase
(10 commitments per year) to the number of commitments to state
SB 821 (Block) Page 4 of
?
prison each year resulting from the provisions of this bill,
state incarceration costs would increase by $435,000 (General
Fund) on an annualized basis utilizing the average length of
stay of 18 months for this offense.
The Three-Judge Court ordered the State to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of the prison system's design
capacity by February 28, 2016. Pursuant to its February 10, 2014
order, the Court has ordered the CDCR to implement several
population reduction measures, prohibited an increase in the
population of inmates housed in out-of-state facilities, and
indicated that the Court will maintain jurisdiction over the
State for as long as necessary to ensure that the State's
compliance with the 137.5 percent final benchmark is durable,
and that such durability is firmly established. Any future
increases to the State's prison population challenge the ability
of the State to reach and maintain such a "durable solution,"
and could require the State to pursue one of several options,
including contracting-out for additional bed space or releasing
current inmates earlier onto parole.
-- END --