BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
THIRD READING
.
Bill No: SB 1143
Author: Mountjoy (R)
Amended: 5/30/95
Vote: 21
.
SENATE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/25/95
AYES: Beverly, Campbell, Kopp, Polanco, Boatwright
NOT VOTING: Watson, Marks
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 13-0, 5/25/95
AYES: Johnston, Alquist, Calderon, Dills, Greene, Kelley,
Killea, Leonard, Leslie, Lewis, Mello, Mountjoy, Polanco
.
SUBJECT: Sexually violent predators
SOURCE: City of Covina
.
DIGEST: This bill makes various changes to existing law
relative to sexually violent predators.
ANALYSIS: Existing law provides for continued treatment
of mentally disordered prisoners when they are released to
parole.
This bill provides that any person who has been convicted
of a sexually violent offense and who has completed a
separate prior prison sentence for a similar crime must be
noticed by the judges at the time of sentencing that he/she
may be evaluated by the Department of Corrections at the
time of receipt to determine if he/she is a sexually
violent predator.
CONTINUED
SB 1143
Page
2
The bill defines osexually violent predatoro to be a person
who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense that
occurred on or after January 1, 1996, who has completed a
separate prior prison sentence for a sexually violent
offense and who has a mental abnormality or personality
disorder that makes the person a danger to others.
Conviction of one or more specified crimes shall constitute
evidence that may support a court or jury determination
that the person is a sexual predator.
This bill would define "sexually violent offense" to
include a felony violation of rape, spousal rape, sex crime
in concert, sodomy or oral copulation or foreign object
penetration offenses as listed below, lewd act on a child
under 14, continuous sexual abuse, or anal penetration by
undetermined means, when the violation is forcible or is
committed against a child under 14, when any of the
following is proved:
1.There is a previous conviction of forcible rape, spousal
rape, sex crime in concert, sodomy, oral copulation,
foreign object penetration, copulation or foreign object
penetration offenses as listed above, continuous sexual
abuse, or anal penetration by undetermined means; or
2.The defendant kidnapped the victim; or
3.The defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim
or another person during the offense; or
4.The offense was committed during the commission of a
burglary; or
5.The defendant used a deadly or dangerous weapon or used a
deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm.
The bill provides the following statement of need:
oThe Legislature finds and declares that a small but
extremely dangerous group of sexually violent predators
that generally have personality disorders can be identified
while they are incarcerated. These persons are not safe to
CONTINUED
SB 1143
Page
3
be at large and if released represent a danger to the
health and safety of others in that they are likely to
engage in acts of sexual violence. The Legislature further
finds and declares that it is in the interest of society to
identify these individuals prior to the expiration of their
terms of imprisonment. It is the intent of the Legislature
that once identified, these individuals, if found to be
likely to commit acts of sexually violent criminal behavior
by clear and convincing evidence, be confined and treated
until such time that it can be determined that they no
longer present a threat to society.
oThe Legislature further finds and declares that the
treatment needs of this population are very long term and
the treatment modalities that are appropriate for this
population are substantially different from those persons
currently receiving mental health treatment under the
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section
5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code)
and, accordingly, a new civil commitment needs to be
established to address the treatment needs of this
population.o
The Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Act (MDSO), Welfare &
Institutions Code Section 6300 et seq., was enacted in 1967
and repealed in 1981. That Act provided that upon
conviction, the court could order an examination of the
person by two to three psychologists. Upon a showing
beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a danger and that
he or she could benefit by treatment, the person would be
moved to a treatment facility. If the person was found not
to be amenable to treatment, he or she would be returned to
the regular sentencing process. The maximum term to be
served in the MDSO program would be the maximum term the
person could have served in prison.
A determination by the court that the person be sent to the
MDSO program was appealable to a jury, who would answer the
question: "Are you convinced to a moral certainty and
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is a mentally
disordered sex offender?"
If the Director of Mental Health determined that the person
continued to present a substantial danger of bodily harm to
CONTINUED
SB 1143
Page
4
others, a trial would be set for no less than 30 days from
the release date and the person would be provided with full
criminal proceeding protections. The additional commitment
would be for up to two years.
An MDSO case could be held indefinitely but was entitled to
a hearing upon request every six months.
Existing law provides for the disposition of mentally
disordered offenders (MDO) upon discharge. (Penal Code
Section 2960 et seq.) In the MDO program, the Department
of Corrections is to begin treatment of disordered
prisoners during their first year of incarceration. As a
condition of parole, a person with a severe mental disorder
that is not in remission and cannot be kept in remission
without treatment may be placed in treatment. Those with
personality or adjustment disorders (the subjects of this
bill) are specifically excluded from the program.
Prior Legislation
SB 41X (Presley) of 1994 passed the Senate 33-3 (noes:
Alquist, Marks and Petris) but failed passage in the
Assembly Public Safety Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/30/95)
City of Covina (source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.
Attorney General
Cities of Arcadia, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Duarte ,
Glendora, LaVerne, LaHabra Heights, Monrovia, and Pasadena
Committee on Moral Concerns
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau
Justice for Murder Victims
Law and Order Committee of the California Peace Officers'
Association
Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association
Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Police Departments of Claremont, El Monte, Irwindale,
Pasadena, Pomona, Redding, San Gabriel, San Marino, West
CONTINUED
SB 1143
Page
5
Covina and Whittier
Protect Our Children
Tylers Love Continues
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/30/95)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the authoros office,
under current law there is no legal authority to detain and
treat sexually violent offenders who are likely to commit
new offenses because of their mental abnormality and
defects. There is no procedure to prevent the release into
unsuspecting communities of sexually violent offenders who
have completed their prison sentences. This bill
establishes civil commitment procedures for the placement
and treatment of sexually violent offenders in a secure
mental health facility following their release from prison.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The American Civil Liberties
Union state they oppose this bill on both policy and
constitutional grounds:
oThis wide sweeping legislation permits the state to
indefinitely confine in mental facilities individuals who
have committed sexually motivated crimes based on perceived
fears that these persons will commit future crimes. This
bill is essentially a preventive detention scheme based on
allegations of future dangerousness, and as such violates
substantive due process of law.
oPursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in
Foucha v. Louisiana, the state must prove an individual is
both mentally ill and dangerous before the person can be
involuntarily committed. SB 1143 fails to meet this
minimal requirement in that a "sexually violent predator"
as defined in the statute does not apply to a group of
persons who are mentally ill. As the Supreme Court noted
in Foucha: oThe State asserts that because Foucha once
committed a criminal act and now has an antisocial
personality that sometimes leads to aggressive conduct, a
disorder for which there is no effective treatment, he may
be held indefinitely. This rationale would permit the
CONTINUED
SB 1143
Page
6
State to hold indefinitely any other insanity acquittee not
mentally ill who could be shown to have a personality
disorder that may lead to criminal conduct. The same would
be true of any convicted criminal, even though he has
completed his prison term.oo
CONTINUED
RJG:lm 5/30/95 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****