BILL ANALYSIS
AB 369
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 4, 2000
Counsel: Bruce E. Chan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mike Honda, Chair
AB 369 (Havice) - As Amended: January 3, 2000
FOR RECONSIDERATION ONLY
SUMMARY : Prohibits persons sentenced to state prison for
violent felonies from having conjugal visits.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "violent felonies" as murder, voluntary manslaughter,
mayhem, rape, forcible sodomy, oral copulation, or child
molestation, any felony punishable by death or life
imprisonment, any felony in which the defendant inflicted
great bodily injury, any felony in which the defendant
personally used a firearm, robbery of an inhabited dwelling
where the defendant personally used a deadly weapon, arson,
attempted murder, carjacking, kidnapping for purposes of
molesting a child, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and
exploding a bomb with the intent to murder. (Penal Code
Section 667.5(c).)
2)Vests in the Director of the California Department of
Corrections (CDC), the authority to supervise, manage, and
control 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.)
3)Describes those prisoners who are prohibited from receiving
such visits. Among those ineligible are inmates convicted of
a violent offense involving a minor or family member, life
prisoners, 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,
AB 369
Page 2
and any prisoner deemed a security risk. (Title 15, Cal. Code
of Regs., Section 3174.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "State prisons
allow inmates to have conjugal visits. 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, 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 state prisoner
civil rights 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 Legislature's intent of maintaining an inmate's
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.
AB 369
Page 3
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 inmates convicted of
a violent offense involving a minor or family member, life
prisoners, 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 Regs., Section 3174.)
4)Statistics Regarding Family Visits: In 1993, a CDC survey
estimated the cost per family visit to be approximately $120.
This included the staff time needed to process both the
visitors and the inmate to the visiting area. No estimate of
utility costs were available, as the units do not have
separate utility meters. 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. The following chart based on
the most recent information received from CDC represents the
number of incidents in the family-visiting program.
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)Statements In Support: According to the Doris Tate Crime
Victims Bureau, "On behalf of the Doris Tate Crime Victims
Bureau, I would like to urge you to vote YES on Assembly Bill
369 (Havice) regarding violent offenders.
AB 369
Page 4
"This legislation would simply codify the existing California
Department of Corrections policies regarding overnight visits.
Existing policies have been a sensible and important
safeguard against abuse and have been applied fairly, limiting
only the most violent of California's prison population.
"The majority of law enforcement groups and crime victim
organizations statewide are united in their support of these
policies and this legislation."
6)Statements In Opposition: According to Californians 2 Amend 3
Strikes, "?Once again, we are faced with AB 369 being
introduced to separate the family unit. We understand that a
criteria 'already' exists for those who are defined as 'having
violent offenses' in their CDC file. To try and implement a
new bill at the cost of the taxpayers as well as separating
the family unit is absolutely ridiculous.
"This bill will only overlap an existing criteria and open the
door for more frivolous bills to be introduced.
"?this is an overlapping of what is already in existence. We
all know that there are presently categories of inmates that
are not allowed family/conjugal visits, and we also know that
the Director of Corrections has the authority to regulate the
family/conjugal visits under the existing law. So therefore,
there is definitely no need whatsoever for AB 369 to even be
on the floor, let alone to consider it, since the criteria is
already in place."
7)Related 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
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau
Opposition
Californians To Amend 3 Strikes
Concerned Families and Friends
AB 369
Page 5
California Public Defenders Association
5 private citizens
Analysis Prepared by : Bruce Chan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744