BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2258
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
Counsel: Kimberly A. Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2258 (Bass) - As Amended: April 6, 2010
SUMMARY : Creates the California Public Safety Commission
(CPSC) and in doing so declares legislative intent to enhance
public safety; promote effective crime-reduction strategies;
base California's sentencing practices on principles of
fairness, justice, and accountability; and ensure that public
resources and taxpayer dollars are expended in a way that most
successfully protects the public from crime and reduces criminal
recidivism. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that the Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court shall appoint an executive director who shall be exempt
from civil service.
2)Mandates that the administrative duties of the CPSC shall be
conducted by CPSC staff physically sited in the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC). All of the CPSC decisions,
analyses, recommendations, and other duties shall be
independent of the AOC and shall not reflect any position of
the AOC or be represented as those of the AOC.
3)States that for the purposes of expenditures for the support
of the CPSC, including the expenses of the members of the
CPSC, the CPSC shall be within the judicial branch of state
government, but the CPSC shall not subject to the control or
direction of any officer or employee of the judicial branch
except in connection with the appropriation of funds approved
by the Legislature.
4)Defines the "CPSC" as a criminal justice agency pursuant to
provisions of existing law.
5)Requires that the CPSC staff shall spend its first three years
solely getting organized, creating procedures and
partnerships, conducting research and collecting data.
AB 2258
Page 2
6)Mandates that in discharging its responsibilities, the CPSC
shall do the following:
a) Collect information on all correctional populations in
California;
b) Survey correctional resources across state and local
governments;
c) Conduct research into crime rates, criminal cases
entering the court system, sentences imposed and served for
particular offenses, and sentencing patterns for California
as a whole and for geographic regions within California;
d) Consult available research and data on the current
effectiveness of sentences imposed and served;
e) Study the experiences of other jurisdictions with
sentencing commissions; and,
f) Identify and prioritize areas where necessary data and
research are lacking concerning the operation of the
sentencing system, and recommend to the Legislature means
by which the CPSC or other state agencies may be empowered
to address those needs.
7)Requires that the CPSC, on an on-going basis, develop
information system to track criminal cases entering the court
system; the effects of offense, offender, victim, and
case-processing characteristics upon sentences imposed and
served; sentencing patterns for the state as a whole and for
geographic regions within the state; data on the incidence of
and reasons for sentencing revocations; and other matters
found by the CPSC to have important bearing on the operation
of the sentencing and corrections system.
8)Provides that each agency and department of state government
shall make its services, equipment personnel, facilities, and
information available to the greatest practicable extent to
the CPSC in the execution of its functions. Information that
is privileged under state or federal law is exempted from this
provision.
9)Requires that agencies shall inform the CPSC if the
information requested is not available. If the CPSC is
AB 2258
Page 3
informed by a state agency that information is not available,
the CPSC may then request that information from local a local
law enforcement agency which may provide that information to
the greatest extent practical.
10)States that upon request from the CPSC, state law enforcement
agencies, including parole officers, shall supply arrest and
criminal history records to the CPSC. County probation
departments may provide copies of pre-sentence reports to the
CPSC, upon request.
11)Provides that any information obtained by the CPSC pursuant
to this legislation, is confidential, and shall be maintained
in a manner that meets the highest standards of privacy and
shall not be disclosed other than for the purposes for which
it was acquired.
12)Mandates the CPSC have the authority to enter partnerships or
joint agreements with organizations and agencies from this and
other jurisdictions, including academic departments, private
associations, and other sentencing commissions, to perform
research needed to carry out its duties.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and
the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall
order imposition of the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. At
least four days prior to the time set for imposition of
judgment, either party or the victim, or the family of the
victim if the victim is deceased, may submit a statement in
aggravation or mitigation to dispute facts in the record or
the probation officer's report or to present additional facts.
In determining whether there are circumstances that justify
imposition of the upper or lower term, the court may consider
the record in the case; the probation officer's report; other
reports, including reports received pursuant to existing law
and statements in aggravation or mitigation submitted by the
prosecution, the defendant, or the victim, or the family of
the victim if the victim is deceased; and any further evidence
introduced at the sentencing hearing. The court shall set
forth on the record the facts and reasons for imposing the
upper or lower term. The court may not impose an upper term
by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is
AB 2258
Page 4
imposed under any provision of law. A term of imprisonment
shall not be specified if imposition of sentence is suspended.
[Penal Code Section 1170(b).]
2)Declares legislative intent that the purpose of imprisonment
for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by terms
proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision
for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the
same offense under similar circumstances. The Legislature
further finds and declares that the elimination of disparity
and the provision of uniformity of sentences can best be
achieved by determinate sentences fixed by statute in
proportion to the seriousness of the offense as determined by
the Legislature to be imposed by the court with specified
discretion. [Penal Code Section 1170(a)(1).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 2258 seeks
to create the California Public Safety Commission, an
independent, multi-jurisdictional body to work on policy
issues related to the state's criminal justice system. Our
current criminal justice sentencing structure leads to
seriously overcrowded facilities, financial constraints, and
an inability to deliver reentry services and high recidivism
rates. The bill would stipulate that the commission's staff
spend its first three years solely on creating partnerships,
procedures, conducting research, and collecting data.
Currently, California does not have an entity in place solely
focused on gathering accurate, timely and complete public
safety data. Policymakers must be enabled to make informed
decisions based on reliable empirical data. California needs
to step back and comprehensively look at our system.
Establishing such an entity affords the opportunity to collect
data on the population and evaluate the performance of the
existing criminal justice system."
2)History and Consequences of Sentencing Law in California :
According to information provided by the Stanford Law School
Criminal Justice Center, "Until 1976, California had an
indeterminate sentencing system: judges had almost complete
discretion to impose sentences within broadly defined ranges,
and parole authorities had almost complete discretion to
AB 2258
Page 5
release inmates any time before the expiration of the imposed
sentence. Sentencing experts and policy-makers were virtually
united in their opposition to this system, condemning it for
lacking uniformity, proportionality, and transparency, and for
unrealistically promoting rehabilitation as a primary goal of
sentencing.
"In 1976, the California Legislature enacted the Determinate
Sentencing Act (DSA), explicitly describing the new law's
philosophy as rooted in 'punishment' rather than
rehabilitation. The DSA grouped crimes into categories, with
each category tied to a sentencing 'triad' containing a high,
middle, and low sentence. The law directed judges
presumptively to impose the middle sentence or, if justified
by aggravating and/or mitigating factors, the higher or lower
sentence. The DSA also abolished discretionary parole
release.
"There is now growing agreement among practitioners,
policymakers, and academics that California's post-1976
sentencing structure has contributed to serious problems that
no one anticipated in 1976 - a correctional system plagued by
egregious overcrowding, unsafe conditions for officers and
inmates, high recidivism, a troubled parole revocation system,
increasing expenditures, a lack of systematic data collection,
and an incoherent sentencing structure.
"This new consensus now recognizes that it is good public policy
for California to create a sentencing data and policy
commission as a new independent agency, drawing on
professional policy expertise as well as the perspectives of
representatives from various parts of state government. The
agency's mandate would be to collect and analyze sentencing
and corrections data, to develop statewide sentencing and
corrections policies, and to coordinate sentencing policy with
correctional resources.
"Improvement in California's sentencing system requires the
cooperation and broad agreement of various branches and
agencies of government, as well as key constituent groups.
The institutional complexity of a large government in a large
and diverse state poses great logistical obstacles to the
kinds of inter-party discussion needed for such cooperation
and agreement. Hence, one key value of the CSC is that it can
serve as a representative microcosm of this range of
AB 2258
Page 6
perspectives and interests and so it can replicate the kind of
dialogue that would otherwise happen only in an idealized
world. Because all the relevant parties have their own, often
conflicting, ideas on how best to resolve California's
sentencing and corrections crisis, the only sensible solution
is to delegate the responsibility of conducting an objective
analysis of these issues to an independent expert agency
capable of addressing them."
3)Experience of Other States : According to the Little Hoover
Report, several other states have developed successful
sentencing commissions:
"In 1980, Minnesota pioneered the guideline-setting sentencing
commission structure. Minnesota's sentencing commission was
tasked by the Legislature with developing sentencing
guidelines that would go into effect unless voted down by the
Legislature. Minnesota's sentencing commission specifies
presumptive sentences through legally binding guidelines. The
guidelines, however, also authorize and invite substantial
trial court discretion to deviate from presumptive sentences
in cases with extraordinary circumstances. When judges
deviate from the presumptive sentence, they must explain for
the record why they deviated from the guidelines and there is
an appellate review mechanism for these cases. In written
testimony to the commission, Anoka County Attorney Robert M.A.
Johnson said that the primary goals of the commission 'are to
assure public safety, promote uniformity in sentencing,
promote proportionality in sentencing, provide truth and
certainty in sentencing, and coordinate sentencing practices
with correctional resources.' Since the 1980 Minnesota model
was enacted, a permanent sentencing commission overseeing and
setting sentencing guidelines has been emulated with
adaptation by nearly two dozen other states.
"Sentencing guidelines have been adopted in 18 states and a
half-dozen other states are considering adopting guidelines.
Several states, including Connecticut, Maine, Texas, Colorado,
Nevada, New York and Montana, considered guidelines and chose
not to adopt them. In seven states, sentencing guidelines are
voluntary and are not subject to the appellate process. In
some of these states, judges are required to give reasons for
departing from the guidelines. Because of this, compliance
rates in voluntary guideline states are often quite high.
Fourteen of the guideline states have permanent sentencing
AB 2258
Page 7
commissions; four do not. Alaska had a temporary commission in
the early 1990s, and the guidelines developed in Florida and
Michigan were written by sentencing commissions that were
later abolished. New Jersey created a temporary commission in
2004 and is currently evaluating whether or not to make the
commission permanent. Some states have sentencing
commissions, but have not adopted sentencing guidelines. In
all, 21 states have sentencing commissions. Most sentencing
commissions include judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
corrections officials, academics, public members and sometimes
legislators. In all states with permanent sentencing
commissions, the CSC (or occasionally another state agency)
performs the critical assessments of the impact of proposed
sentencing guidelines and statutes on resources.
"The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
was created in 1990 to bring certainty and rationality to a
system in which incarcerated felons were serving just a
fraction of their sentences and the public confidence in the
criminal justice system had seriously eroded. The system set
sentencing guidelines based on the crime committed and the
prior record of the offender and also expanded community-based
sanctions. The reform eliminated early release to parole but
included mandatory post-release supervision for certain
offenders. As a result of the reform, violent offenders
sentenced after 1993 serve much longer sentences. To
accommodate the increased length of incarceration for violent
offenders, the state developed and adequately funded
alternative sanctions for non-violent, non-repeat offenders.
Since the passage of the structured sentencing law, the
30-member commission continues to advise the Legislature on
sentencing policy by providing correctional resource
assessments and annually providing prison population
projections.
"The [Virginia Criminal Justice Research Center] showed that
Virginia's criminal justice system did not efficiently use
incarceration to protect public safety and that Virginia
incarcerated older, non-violent offenders much longer than
younger, violent offenders. Based on the research, the
commission developed voluntary sentencing guidelines that
resulted in violent and younger offenders serving longer
prison terms, abolished parole release and replaced it with
post-release supervision for certain offenders and expanded
alternative sanctions and intermediate punishment programs.
AB 2258
Page 8
The sentencing commission became permanent, and its 17 members
were charged with administering the guideline system and
annually making sentencing law revisions which take effect if
the Legislature takes no action to override the revisions.
Additionally, the commission was charged with developing a
risk assessment tool for low-level non-violent offenders to be
used by judges at sentencing to divert these offenders to
community-based sanctions." [Little Hoover Commission (2007),
Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out,
pgs. 33-48.]
"Several states established temporary sentencing commissions or
abolished permanent commissions, and California can benefit
from the lessons learned in these states as well as from the
states that have had successful commissions:
"The South Carolina Sentencing Guideline Commission was
established as a temporary commission charged with
recommending sentencing guidelines to the legislature.
However, the judiciary in the state opposed the creation of
the commission and, as a result, its recommendations were not
enacted by the legislature. New York also had a temporary
commission and its guidelines also were not enacted by the
legislature. In Michigan, the Supreme Court established
sentencing guidelines based on sentencing practices of trial
courts. Wanting to take a more active role in sentencing
policy, the Michigan legislature established the Michigan
Sentencing Commission in 1994. The Michigan Sentencing
Commission recommended guidelines that were enacted by the
legislature in 1998. The commission stopped meeting after it
developed the guidelines and the legislature took over
responsibility for evaluating, monitoring and amending the
guidelines. Experts suggest that the commission dissolved
prematurely due to the lack of political support from the
legislature. Florida's sentencing guidelines originally were
established through its judicial branch. The chief justice of
the Florida Supreme Court directed a research team to develop
guidelines that would be tied to existing practices and have
little impact on resources, but would reduce sentencing
disparities.
"By the early 1980s, both the legislature and the governor
became more interested in sentencing policy and created the
Florida Sentencing Guidelines Commission within the state's
department of corrections. With the commission's assistance,
AB 2258
Page 9
lawmakers enacted increasingly tough sentences, particularly
for drug crimes. The inmate population quickly increased,
prisons became severely overcrowded and the federal courts
took control, imposing a population cap. As a result of the
mandatory minimums used to incarcerate drug offenders, the
courts were unable to shorten sentences for these offenders
and instead were forced to reduce sentences for more violent
and serious offenders. As a result of this fiasco, the
sentencing commission was abolished." [Little Hoover
Commission (2007), Solving California's Corrections Crisis:
Time is Running Out, pgs. 33-48.] It is important to note,
however, that this bill only collects data regarding the
nature and type of certain offenders and criminal sentencing.
4)Related Legislation : AB 1376 (Bass) established an
independent, multi-jurisdictional body to provide a
non-partisan forum for statewide policy development,
information development, research and planning concerning
criminal sentences and their effect. AB 1376 is pending in
the Senate Committee on Rules.
5)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 160 (Lieber), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have established the California Sentencing Commission
(CSC), with specified membership and terms, to devise
sentencing guidelines. AB 160 died on the Senate Inactive
File.
b) SB 110 (Romero), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have created a CSC to revise rules and penalties
imposed for specified crimes unless rejected by the
Legislature in statute. SB 110 died on the Assembly Floor.
c) ABx2 14 (Lieber), of the 2005-06 Second Extraordinary
Session on Prison Overcrowding, established the CSC, with
specified membership and terms, to devise sentencing
guidelines. ABx2 14 was held at the Assembly Desk and
never heard.
d) AB 2152 (Goldberg), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have established the CSC, with specified membership
and terms, to devise sentencing guidelines. AB 2152 was
substantially amended when it reached the Senate and was
AB 2258
Page 10
subsequently vetoed.
e) SB 873 (Vasconcellos), of the 1999-2000 Legislative
Session, would have provided that the Legislative Analyst
examine the costs and benefits of the Three Strikes Law and
report its findings to the Legislature. SB 873 was vetoed.
f) SB 2048 (Vasconcellos), of the 1997-98 Legislative
Session, would have provided that the Legislative Analyst,
in cooperation with the Judicial Council, the Attorney
General, and the University of California (upon approval by
the Board of Regents), examine the costs and benefits of
the Three Strikes Law, and report its findings to the
Legislature. SB 2048 was vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744