CommentaryDawn Koepke [Legislative Advocate, Crime Victims United of California]: "After months of debate, the legislature approved a watered-down version of the Corrections budget package aimed at addressing the $1.2 billion unallocated cut to the Department of Corrections provided in the July budget package. The highly controversial provisions that included instituting an independent sentencing commission, early release of inmates to alternative custody, and changing a number of wobbler crimes to misdemeanors were removed from the plan. Crime Victims United of California (CVUC) worked tirelessly with other public safety representatives to ensure these provisions, among others, were addressed.
Although the package enacted was far better than the package originally proposed by the governor and legislature, it was not perfect and will undoubtedly have consequences. The package includes updates to the property crime thresholds to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI); inmate credit enhancements for those that participate in programs while in prison; summary parole/banked caseloads for parole that would reduce parole supervision for "non-violent," "non-serious" and "non-sex" offenders (this component of the package would also eliminate revocation for these parolees); and more.
Despite the enactment of the watered-down plan, the issue of the federal court order to release roughly 40,000 inmates remains an issue that has yet to play out. The Schwarzenegger Administration has filed a revised prison reduction plan with the federal courts in response to the three judge panel's order to reduce the prison population by 40,000 over the next two years. The new plan would purportedly reduce the prison population by 42,000 by December 2011 and identify, per the judge's order, State laws that would need to be suspended in order to meet the reduction goal. Although the Administration has provided such information relative to suspension of laws, it has indicated doing so would not be within the federal court's jurisdiction to intrude in to the State's affairs.
The revised plan includes the proposals CVUC and law enforcement stakeholders fought hard to defeat over the last few years as well as other proposals that will require changes in State laws or federal court orders. While we remain concerned about a number of these approaches, we are particularly concerned about the applicability of many of these proposals to purportedly "non-violent" and "non-serious" offenders; provisions related to imposition of a summary parole system; and reliance on alternative custody options for released offenders and parolees. These measures are all window dressing items that deal with population reduction needs, but do not adequately focus on public safety and rehabilitation needs. These proposals are purportedly geared towards focusing resources on the more serious of offenders, but many such offenders would be overlooked for such focused resources as a result of penal code definitions that do not adequately categorize the seriousness of offenses.
Because many vicious crimes against children and others are classified as "non-violent" or "non-serious" — the "lower risk" offenders referred to in the plan — in the State penal code, the proposal could allow the early release of felons convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor; incest; pimping a minor, pandering a minor or providing a minor for lewd purposes; and other such crimes if not crafted carefully. Furthermore, steps must be taken to ensure that those offenders that would be considered "lower risk" are not considered such merely based on their last offense. It is important to look at the offender's history; in order to be sent to prison, more serious/violent offenses will have been committed by the offender. We have no assurances that these issues have been adequately factored in to the criteria for determining eligibility for the various options laid out in the plan (summary parole, alternative custody, etc.).
In this regard, CVUC would urge you to consider the recent Los Angeles case of Lily Burk who was brutally murdered. The suspected offender was last convicted for a "non-serious/non-violent" offense and sent to a rehabilitation center (read alternative custody option). Depending on the details of these proposals and diligence of staff in reviewing and assessing the offender and his records, many offenders like Charles Samuel whose record shows an increasing level of serious crimes could be subject to the same limited (if any) supervision with disastrous consequences.
CVUC is also highly concerned with the Administration's summary parole or banked caseload-type system. While we do not disagree that the parole system is broken, placing all "lower risk" offenders on the streets without any supervision whatsoever is dangerous. California's current recidivism rate is roughly 70%. Although many of the instances of recidivism may be minor parole violations, many of them are more serious crimes that are committed by offenders that have shown an increasing level of serious/violent crime. Furthermore, this approach will be disastrous when combined with the lack of effective rehabilitation programs, poor economic climate, and decreased level of State support for offender's families as a result of cuts to critical social service programs.
Finally, CVUC understands local law enforcement's need for alternative custody options and has been generally supportive of providing these options; however, this only gets us so far in addressing population issues and public safety concerns. Alternative custody options and sanctions are important, but only as effective as the local law enforcement staff available to monitor and scrutinize offenders' behavior. It is by no means a solution to the entire problem, particularly as local law enforcement agencies have to cut back due to their own budget constraints. This approach for custody of offenders is not a panacea and should not be considered such when public safety hangs in the balance.
CVUC's concern with these proposals might not be so great if offenders were truly rehabilitated in the institutions prior to parole and release. Along with problems related to overcrowding, inmates are still not truly rehabilitated and given the tools they need to become productive members of society and not continuously cycle through the system. Vocational training opportunities within facility walls are hit-and-miss, and very little is done to help ensure that they do not return to prison. Without programs available to offenders inside and outside facilities, they will surely continue to cycle through the system continuing to drive up costs, overcrowding, and bringing more victims into the system as well.
Before considering commutations, alternative custody options, sentence or parole reforms, California must first acknowledge that reducing recidivism is the quickest and cheapest way to reduce our overcrowded system. Such changes would provide long term benefits for the State in the form of decreased corrections costs, offenders in the form of assistance to reform their lives, and fewer victims being involuntarily brought into the criminal justice process."
