BILL ANALYSIS
AB 369
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 1999
Counsel: Bruce E. Chan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mike Honda, Chair
AB 369 (Havice) - As Introduced: February 11, 1999
SUMMARY : Prohibits state prisoners from watching television.
Prohibits state prisoners from having family visits.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a person sentenced to state prison may be
deprived of only those rights as is reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests. (Penal Code Section 2600.)
2)Specifies certain civil rights of state prisoners, including
among others, the right to: own property, correspond
confidentially with an attorney; have personal visits;
purchase, receive and read any and all newspapers,
periodicals; and books accepted for distribution by the United
States Post Office. (Penal Code Section 2601.)
3)Vests in the Director of the California Department of
Corrections (CDC), the authority to supervise, manage, and
control the state prisons. The Director is responsible for
the care, custody, treatment, training, discipline, and
employment of all person confined therein. The Director may
prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the
prisons. (Penal Code Sections 5054 and 5058.)
4)Makes the following legislative findings and declarations:
a) Maintaining an inmate's family and community
relationships is an effective correctional technique which
reduces recidivism.
b) Enhancing visitor services increases the frequency and
quality of visits, thereby discouraging violent prisoner
activity. (Penal Code Section 6350.)
5)Provides that because there is a correlation between prisoners
AB 369
Page 2
who are functionally literate and those who successfully
reintegrate into society upon release, it is the intent of the
Legislature to raise the percentage of prisoners who are
functionally literate in order to provide for a corresponding
reduction in the recidivism rate. The CDC Director must
implement in every state prison literacy programs. Such
programs must give consideration to computer-assisted training
and other innovations, which have proven to be effective in
reducing illiteracy of disadvantaged adults. (Penal Code
Sections 2053 and 2053.1.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "State prisons
allow inmates to have conjugal visits, and open television
viewing rights. Some of these freedoms result in undesirable
consequences. Drug and weapon smuggling, child molestation
and spousal abuse are just some of the outcomes from these
conjugal visits. One serious effect of inmate conjugal visits
are the resulting pregnancies and childbirths. In many cases
these children become recipients of public assistance. Not
only are inmates burdening citizens with the cost of housing
them, but they are also creating additional burdens by
increasing the number of children who have to rely on public
assistance. Inmates serving time in our state-funded prison
system are there to be punished for committing a crime; by
continuing to allow them to have conjugal visits, and open
television viewing rights, we send the wrong message to the
victims and their families."
2)History of Family Visiting Program: Since the Ronald Reagan
administration, the CDC granted family overnight visits as an
earned privilege. In 1996, SB 1221 (Calderon), Chapter 132,
Statutes of 1996, removed from the list of civil rights of a
state prisoner the right to have personal visits. The same
year, the CDC sought and received approval of regulations to
prohibit certain classes of inmates from the program. The
family visiting program was not designed to provide sexual
encounters to inmates. Family visitation gives spouses,
children, and other family members the opportunity to visit
with an inmate in a different setting from the typical crowded
and noisy group visiting areas. Such visits are consistent
with the intent of the Legislature of maintaining an inmate's
AB 369
Page 3
family and community relationships as a means of reducing the
likelihood of recidivism.
3)Rules And Regulations regarding Family Visits: Inmates Must
Be Enrolled In A Work Or Training Program. Not All Inmates
Eligible: Current regulations provide that each prison may
permit family visits if they do not compromise institutional
security. The prison provides all necessary accommodations,
except for food, for the eligible inmates and their families.
Family visiting is a privilege only available to those
prisoners assigned to a work or training program.
Certain large groups of prisoners are prohibited from receiving
such visits. Among those ineligible are life prisoners, all
sex offenders, prisoners convicted of serious rules violations
within the previous 12 months, prisoners who refuse to work,
prisoners in segregation status, prisoners found guilty of
drug trafficking while incarcerated in state prison, and any
prisoner deemed a security risk. (Title 15, Cal. Code of
Rebs., Section 3174.)
4)No Evidence of Increased Crime from Family Visits: In 1997
the CDC studied family visits to determine if the program
compromised institutional security or otherwise contributed to
crime. In 1996, there were 24,632 family visits in the state
prisons for male inmates and 1,276 family visits for female
inmates. There were seven criminal incidents. A recent
article in the Sacramento Bee, submitted by the author in
support of this bill, supports the conclusion that family
visits are not a problem, "in California, some crime has been
reported as a result of the policy, but not much."
The following chart based on the most recent information
received from CDC represents the number of incidents in the
family-visiting program.
AB 369
Page 4
Year Assaults Drugs
Other Total
1992 1 1
2 4
1993 3 1
0 4
1994 3 5
1 9
1995 2 1
2 5
1996 2 4
1 7
5)This Bill Is Inconsistent with Existing Legislative Intent
Regarding Family Visits and Inmate Education: The prohibition
against both television and family visits in this bill is at
odds with the intent of the Legislature to reduce recidivism
by maintaining family relationships and promoting education.
In spite of its considerable faults, television is an
invaluable source of information for every citizen. Prisoners
being paroled need to understand the society that they will be
released into if they desire to lead a law-abiding existence.
6)Television In Prison: Facts: According to CDC, all prisoners
are allowed to purchase television sets through an approved
vendor. Prisoners being housed in administrative segregation
or security housing units due to disciplinary problems are not
permitted to have personal television sets. Many institutions
have cable television outlets due to inadequate antennas or
other difficulties associated with receiving non-cable
broadcasting. The cable service is basic and does not include
premium channels such as HBO, ShowTime, or adult entertainment
channels. There are no figures on the actual number of
private television sets in the state prison system. The CDC
states there are a lot of television sets purchased at an
average cost of $240 per unit. An inmate is required to
purchase a television set which only puts out sound through
personal headphones.
7)Televisions Purchased By Inmates Pursuant To CDC Regulations:
Seizure Without Just Compensation Unconstitutional: According
to CDC, those inmates eligible to purchase television sets
must do so through an approved vendor. Private television
AB 369
Page 5
sets are purchased by prisoners. The Fifth Amendment to the
United Constitution guarantees that individuals must be given
just compensation when the government takes personal or other
property. (See Metropolitan Water Dist. v Adams (1940) 16
Cal.2d 676.) A common example is eminent domain--the right of
the people or government to take private property for public
uses is dependent on compensating the individual for the loss.
Unless this bill provides for a fund to compensate prisoners
who purchased televisions before the enactment of this bill,
there is a risk of a substantial amount of litigation relating
to the seizure of previously lawful items.
8)Statement In Support: The Long Beach Police Officers
Association states: "AB 369 is the most important piece of
legislation to come along in some time?I am all for making the
prison system a humane place, however, those that violate the
laws of this fine country and prey on society need to realize
that certain rights and privileges are forfeited when they
choose their path to travel. Being allowed conjugal visits
does not help deter someone who has made up their mind to go
against society. Those confined need to realize that if they
violate the law, a price has to be paid. Being with your
significant other is a privilege, not a right. The same can
be said for television privileges. When a sentenced person is
allowed to sit in prison and relax while watching their
favorite program on TV or watch their fellow gangster being
made a hero by the media."
9)Statements In Opposition:
a) The California Correctional Peace Officers Association
(CCPOA) states, "Since 1994?privileges, such as visiting
clearly fall under the Director's Rules. In his
discretion, the Director did curtail unsupervised visits
for some inmates, including murderers, sex offender and
those caught running drugs in prison. A bill would not be
necessary, in our opinion, to effect the intent of your
measure to fully eradicate unsupervised visits. A bill
does give the administration a level of comfort in knowing
the state's lawmakers are in agreement with the policy.
Relatedly, we do see merit to supervised visits generally.
Television is a useful tool to occupy the time of many
inmates. Our greatest criticism with television however
goes to an overall societal concern over program content.
AB 369
Page 6
Nonetheless, televisions in individual cells are bought and
are property of the inmate?We see no pressing need at this
time to remove televisions for the general inmate
population. An amendment to remove TV's from the bill
would remove our opposition and allow us to reconsider our
position."
b) The California Public Defenders Association states, "AB
369 brings California one step closer to moving all state
prisoners to a segregated solitary confinement with no
regard for inmate behavior or rehabilitation. Further,
this bill will remove privileges which are valuable tools
for prison management."
10)Prior Legislation: AB 370 (Oller) of the 1997-1998
Legislative Session initially failed passage in committee. The
second hearing was canceled at the request of the author.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Long Beach Police Officers Association
One private citizen
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Public Defenders Association
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Eight private citizens
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce Chan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744