BILL ANALYSIS
AB 17
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 17 (Swanson) - As Amended: May 5, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Increases the maximum fine for felony pimping, pandering, or
procurement from $5,000 to $20,000.
2)Specifies that 50% of the grants to child exploitation and
sexual abuse counseling centers and prevention programs
administered by the Office of Emergency Services, now known as
the California Emergency Management Agency, or Cal-EMA must be
directed to community-based organizations that serve underage
victims of human trafficking. (The fund source for these
grants includes the fines referenced above.)
3)Adds abduction for prostitution to the list of crimes that
constitute criminal profiteering, for which asset forfeiture
can be sought.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, likely minor, increase in fine revenue. Based on the
135 persons committed to state prison in 2007 and 2008,
combined, for pimping and pandering under the sections amended
by this bill, if 20% of these offenders paid a $20,000 rather
than a $5,000 fine (assuming ability to pay), the annual
revenue increase would be about $200,000.
2)Earmarking 50% of the current grants provided to child
exploitation and sexual abuse counseling centers and
prevention programs to community-based organizations that
serve underage victims of human trafficking would reduce the
AB 17
Page 2
grants to organizations that currently receive them. Assuming
only a minor increase in fine revenue as a result of this
bill, grant funds for child exploitation and sexual abuse
counseling centers and prevention programs, estimated at
$600,000 for 2009-10, would be reduced by 50%.
3)Unknown, likely minor increase in asset forfeiture revenue as
a result of adding abduction for prostitution to the list of
crimes that constitute criminal profiteering, for which asset
forfeiture can be sought. Based on the 135 persons committed
to state prison for this offense in 2007 and 2008 combined,
any forfeiture revenues would be modest at best.
4)Proliferation of assessments and charges has driven fines
upward . For example, a $20,000 criminal fine with current
maximum assessments would actually be $76,080, shocking
defendants, and probably judges.
5)Increasing assessments may result in diminishing returns .
Judges do have the discretion to reduce the base fine, which
then reduces revenue to state and local governments, as well
as to assessments. As current penalty assessments can almost
triple the base fine, increasing fines and assessments may
have the unintended consequence of reduced fine collections.
Indigent defendants facing ever-increasing fees may simply
choose to spend time in jail in lieu of paying the fine,
causing taxpayers to pay the jail costs while the state and
local governments receive fewer penalty funds. Moreover,
county jail population caps may provide additional incentives
to opt for jail time over fines, as the time served for
nonviolent offenders may be minimal.
As noted by the California Research Bureau (CRB) in its 2006
review of penalty assessments, "High penalty assessments may
result in higher rates of default by the guilty parties. Some
offenders may spend time in jail, or plea for community
service, rather than pay the fine and penalty assessment. The
end result may be that a substantial amount of fines, fees and
revenue is not collected."
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author's intent is to increase penalties for
human trafficking in an effort to deter the offense while
providing additional funding for victims.
AB 17
Page 3
According to the author, "We are facing a modern day slave
trade in our cities across this state and across the nation.
Countless children, from foster youth to runaways from more
affluent neighborhoods are being trapped, sold and mercilessly
abused for profit. There are even reports that the number of
children kidnapped for sexual exploitation have increased.
Current financial penalties against traffickers are failing to
stem the growing trade in underage youth. We need to make this
enterprise a losing proposition for everyone involved."
2)Opposition . The CA Public Defenders' Association (CPDA) raises
several concerns with what they acknowledge is a
well-intentioned bill, primarily that it is extremely unlikely
these offenders will be able to pay the fines this bill
envisions.
"CPDA and those involved in the court system, however, know
from real-life experience, that in reality, the vast majority
of persons charged with these offenses are small-time street
hustlers who are represented by public defenders when they are
arrested because they are indigent! While CPDA applauds
creative efforts to deter crime and provide funds for victims,
this legislation will accomplish neither of these goals."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081