BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2258
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2258 (Bass) - As Amended: April 6, 2010
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 4-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill creates the California Public Safety Commission (CPSC)
to provide a forum for statewide criminal justice policy
research and planning. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies the administrative duties of the CPSC shall be
conducted by CPSC staff physically located in the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and that CPSC
expenditures shall be considered judicial expenses, but the
CPSC shall not subject to the control or direction of the
judicial branch.
2)Requires the CPSC staff to "spend its first three years solely
getting organized, creating procedures and partnerships,
conducting research and collecting data."
3)Requires the CPSC to:
a) Collect information on correctional populations in
California
b) Survey correctional resources for state and local
governments
c) Conduct research into crime rates and sentencing
d) Study the experiences of other jurisdictions with
sentencing commissions
e) Identify and prioritize areas where data and research
are lacking
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Ongoing significant GF costs, likely in excess of $1 million
AB 2258
Page 2
for staff, operations, and research contracts.
For example, this committee estimated costs for SB 110
(Romero, 2008) - which required the development of mandatory
sentencing guidelines and significant tasks, such as preparing
inmate population projections, developing recommendations on
how best to comply in the event a court orders a reduction in
the state's inmate population, providing training to criminal
justice practitioners, conducting research, and developing
materials, information systems and annual reports to the
Legislature - would be in the range of $2.5 million, with a
staff of about 20.
2)Prospective costs/savings due to actions of the body cannot be
determined, though it is likely a non-politicized sentencing
commission, using evidence-based practices and models, could
recommend a sentencing/parole scheme that results in
significant net state savings.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends California lacks sufficient
criminal justice research and planning to inform its
decision-making. According to the author, "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."
2)Sentencing history/background - paddle right, paddle left .
Until 1976, California operated under the indeterminate
AB 2258
Page 3
sentencing law (ISL). Judges had considerable discretion to
impose sentences within broadly defined ranges, and parole
authorities had discretion to release inmates before the
expiration of the imposed sentence. In 1976, academics and
policymakers, conservatives and liberals, united in their
opposition to this system, condemning it for a lack of
uniformity, proportionality, and transparency. The left
contended no one could get out of prison; the right contended
anyone could get out of prison.
In reaction to ISL discontent, in 1976, California enacted a
determinate sentencing law (DSL), which 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 or mitigating factors, the higher or
lower sentence. The DSL also abolished discretionary parole
release.
Now, some 30 years later, there is increasing sentiment among
policymakers and academics that California's DSL has created a
correctional system plagued by overcrowding and unsafe
conditions. The right contends DSL releases inmates who are
not ready; the left contends DSL prevents the release of
inmates who are ready.
As evidenced by the more than two dozen states that have
formed or are in the process of forming sentencing
commissions, with varying degrees of authority and success,
the current policy direction appears to favor an independent,
depoliticized commission, drawing on a broad spectrum of
policy expertise.
3)Prior Legislation .
a) AB 1376 (Bass, 2009) was a one-sentence bill similar in
intent to AB 2258. AB 1376 is pending in the Senate Rules
Committee.
b) AB 160 (Lieber, 2008) established the California
Sentencing Commission to devise sentencing guidelines. AB
AB 2258
Page 4
160 died on the Senate Inactive File.
c) SB 110 (Romero, 2008) created a sentencing commission to
revise rules and penalties for specified crimes unless
rejected by the Legislature. SB 110 died on the Assembly
Floor.
d) ABx2 14 (Lieber, 2006) established a sentencing
commission to devise sentencing guidelines. ABx2 14 was
never heard.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081