BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
4
2
AB 2424 (Campos) 4
As Introduced February 21, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Penal Code
JM:sl
INDUCEMENT OF PROSTITUTION: FINES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None directly on point
Support: California Communities United Institute; California
Police Chiefs Association; Peace Officers Research
Association of California
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE MAXIMUM FINE FOR THE FELONY OF ABDUCTING OR FRAUDULENTLY
INDUCING A PERSON TO ENGAGE IN PROSTITUTION BE SET AT $10,000 - THE
DEFAULT MAXIMUM FINE FOR A FELONY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to raise the maximum fine for the
felony of abducting or fraudulently inducing a person to engage
in prostitution from $2,000 to $10,000 - the maximum felony fine
that applies where a more specific fine amount is not stated in
(More)
AB 2424 (Campos)
PageB
statute defining a crime.
Existing law provides that prostitution involves any lewd act
between persons for money or other consideration. (Pen. Code �
647, subd. (b); CALCRIM 1154)
Existing decisional law defines a lewd act as "touching the
genitals, buttocks, or female breast of either the prostitute or
customer with some part of the other person's body for the
purpose of sexual arousal or gratification." (CALCRIM 1154,
citing Pryor v. Municipal Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 238, 256; See,
Wooten v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 422, pp.
431-433.)
Existing law provides that any person who solicits, agrees to
engage in, or engages in an act of prostitution is guilty of a
misdemeanor. The crime includes an element that the defendant
specifically intended to engage in an act of prostitution and
some act was done in furtherance of the agreed upon act. (Pen.
Code � 647, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that where any person is convicted for a
second prostitution offense, the person shall serve a term of at
least 45 days, no part of which can be suspended or reduced by
the court regardless of whether or not the court grants
probation. The mandatory jail term is 90 days for a third or
subsequent offense. (Pen. Code � 647, subd. (k).)
Existing law provides every person who, within this state, takes
any person against his or her will and without his or her
consent, or with his or her consent procured by fraudulent
inducement or misrepresentation, for the purpose of
prostitution, as defined, is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for 16 months, 2, or 3 years, and a fine not
exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000). (Pen. Code � 266a.)
This bill increases the maximum fine for abduction or
procurement by fraudulent inducement for prostitution from
$2,000 to $10,000.
(More)
AB 2424 (Campos)
PageC
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
(More)
AB 2424 (Campos)
PageD
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014, and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013, Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
(More)
AB 2424 (Campos)
PageE
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
(More)
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in
the world, estimated to be worth $32 billion per year
globally. Each year between 5,000 and at least 60,000 people
are trafficked into the U.S. for forced labor or commercial
sexual exploitation. In California, there were an average of
12,919 arrests for prostitution and forced prostitution
between 2001 and 2010.
Approximately 80% of all trafficking victims are women and
girls. Many are forced into the commercial sex industry. The
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has
estimated approximately 100,000 U.S. children are exploited
through prostitution every year.
Vulnerable children like those who run away from home are far
more likely to be kidnapped and forced into prostitution. As
unwilling participants, the pimps will threaten extreme
violence to the victim or anyone the victim may know. This is
the criminal action of forcing prostitution.
2. Default Fine for a Felony Where no Other Fine is Specified is
(More)
AB 2424 (Campos)
PageG
$10,000; the Maximum Fine for Fraudulently Inducing a Person
to Engage in Prostitution is $2,000
Penal Code Section 18 provides that where no other sentence is
specified, the penalty for a felony is a term of 16 months, 2 or
3 years. The sentences for the most serious felonies are served
in prison, the rest are served in jail pursuant to Section 1170,
subdivision (h).
Penal Code Section 672 provides that where no other fine is
specified, the maximum fine for a felony is $10,000 and the
maximum for a misdemeanor is $1,000. While many felony statutes
specifically state that the maximum fine for the offense is
$10,000, others simply state that the offense is a felony or
that an offense punishable pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170,
subdivision (h).<1>
The crime considered by this bill - abducting or fraudulently
inducing another person to engage in prostitution by fraud or
misrepresentation - is a felony punishable by a prison term of
16 months, 2 or 3 years. The maximum fine for the offense is
$2,000. This fine is $8,000 less than the default or standard
maximum fine for a felony. Arguably, forcing or falsely
inducing another person into prostitution is a relatively
egregious crime, such that the default felony fine is not
excessive.
SHOULD THE MAXIMUM FINE FOR THE FELONY OF FRAUDULENTLY INDUCING
A PERSON TO ENGAGE IN PROSTITUTION BE SET AT $10,000 - THE
DEFAULT FELONY MAXIMUM FINE THAT APPLIES WHERE ANOTHER FINE
AMOUNT IS SPECIFIED?
***************
---------------------------
<1> Section 1170, subdivision (h) is the criminal justice
realignment statute providing that a person convicted of offense
in a specified category is subject to felony sentence served in
the county jail. Section 1170, subdivision (h) specifically
provides that if no other term is stated in the statute defining
the crime, the court choose a term of 16 months, two years or
three years in the county jail.
AB 2424 (Campos)
PageH