BILL ANALYSIS
AB 106
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 106 (Cohn ) - As Amended: March 8, 2005
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires creates a one-time amnesty program for
penalties and assessments imposed for spousal battery or
domestic violence that have been delinquent for not less than
six months as of January 1, 2006. Persons eligible for the
amnesty must pay 70% of the total penalty.
FISCAL EFFECT
One-time GF administrative costs to the courts, likely in excess
of $150,000 to establish an effective amnesty program, which
would require a significant number of manual case file reviews -
likely in the tens of thousands - and offender notification.
Costs may be offset, fully or in part, by unknown one-time
amnesty revenue.
It is difficult to estimate whether the potential one-time 70%
amnesty revenue would augment or reduce the penalty revenue that
would have been collected absent an amnesty program. Penalty
revenues are distributed between state and local agencies.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, this bill models the
innovative and successful Statewide Tax Amnesty Program used
by the Board of Equalization, and provides local governments a
short-term tool to increase collection of court fines for
domestic violence cases, thus providing funds for domestic
violence programs.
2)Current law :
AB 106
Page 2
a) Authorizes the Judicial Council to establish an amnesty
program for the collection of penalties and assessments,
applicable statewide or by county.
b) Makes battery, when committed against a spouse or other
specified persons, punishable by up to one year in county
jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000. If a person is granted
probation for a crime in which the victim is a spouse or
other specified person, the terms of probation include,
until January 1, 2007, a minimum $400 penalty, and after
January 1, 2007 a minimum $200 penalty.
3)The Judicial Council opposes this measure, stating that it is
"inconsistent with the enhanced collections strategy adopted
by the council and currently being implemented by the courts
and their county partners." The Judicial Council notes that a
penalty collection working group required by SB 940 (Escutia,
2003) recommended the Council not establish an amnesty program
because:
a) Although an amnesty program may bring in one-time
revenues, the effect on ongoing revenues could be
substantial for courts and counties with successful
collections programs and for those initiating or enhancing
a collections program.
b) Amnesty programs are labor-intensive.
c) Failure to hold the defendant fully accountable for the
crime undermines the effectiveness of the judicial system.
4)The effectiveness of court amnesty programs is questioned by
the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), which opines on
its web site that amnesty programs "offer few real benefits
beyond a short-term ability to raise some fast cash and close
some delinquent cases."
According to the NCSC, "granting amnesty undermines the
deterrence and punishment goals behind the original sentence
as well as the fundamental credibility of the court. An
amnesty program rewards the contemptuous and penalizes the
AB 106
Page 3
responsible members of the community who pay their obligations
on time." NCSC criticisms include:
a) Amnesty applies only to those who receive monetary
penalties, not to those who have committed identical
offenses but were sentenced to community service, diversion
programs, education programs, jail, etc.
b) If amnesty operates as a fixed percentage reduction of
financial penalties, then it is highly regressive against
the poorer offenders.
c) Since amnesty programs are often a symptom of chronic
failure to effectively manage sentence enforcement
resources, there is no guarantee such programs will produce
even a short-term increase in revenues. There is little
reason to pay, even if the penalty is reduced, if the
public perception is that the court is not going to enforce
the fine anyway.
d) The cost-effectiveness of amnesty programs is
questionable. A court might achieve better net results by
investing the necessary operational costs in improvements
to general collections administration.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081