Prop. 57 puts public safety at risk

Last Tuesday, California voters decisively approved Proposition 57 by a margin of 65 to 35 percent. Titled the "Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016," the law provides early parole eligibility for so-called "non-violent offenders" and gives officials at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority to further reduce sentences of all offenders for good behavior, education and rehabilitation efforts, and changes the procedure by which juvenile offenders are certified to be prosecuted as adults.

Proponents of Prop. 57 promised it would:

* Keep the most dangerous offenders locked up;

* Reduce recidivism by providing a system of education and rehabilitation; and

* Restrict release to inmates who demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and do not pose a danger to the public.

To the layperson, these proposals undoubtedly seem perfectly reasonable on their face.

I opposed this proposition out a concern for its potential negative impact on public safety. Firstly, the initiative contains no details about what offenses are "nonviolent" and therefore qualify for early release, nor does it contain any details about the process that will be used to determine if each individual is suitable for early release. It provides that "[a]ny person convicted of a non-violent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense." However, the law is not limited to inmates who most citizens would consider nonviolent offenders. Among others, those convicted of rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking of minors, drive-by shooting, domestic violence, arson and assault with a deadly weapon may be eligible for early release since those offenses are not "violent" as that term is defined in the California Penal Code.

In the Official Voter Information Guide published by the California Secretary of State, Prop. 57's proponents promised that the initiative "[d]oes NOT and will not change the federal court order that excludes sex offenders, as defined in Penal Code 290, from parole." In truth, the three-judge federal panel overseeing our prison system has never issued orders prohibiting sex offenders from early parole and there is nothing in the actual text of the bill that prohibits registered sex offenders from taking advantage of its early release provisions.

Second, the law only excludes inmates from early release based on their commitment offense - the offense for which they are currently incarcerated. Prior serious and violent offenses do not act as disqualifiers for early release.

Third, Prop. 57 included no provision whatsoever to protect victims' rights. In 2008, California voters passed Marsy's law (The Victim's Bill of Rights), giving victims a

constitutional right to be informed and to be heard in all aspects of the criminal justice process. Prop. 57 appears to be in direct conflict with many of those rights.

Fourth, the law contains no provisions regarding notice to the district attorney so we can provide information to be considered in evaluating whether any individual inmate is suitable for early release.

Fifth, there is no language in Prop. 57 that speaks to enhanced education or rehabilitative programs for prison inmates. Proponents baldly stated that it will "focus on evidence-based rehabilitation" without explanation of what programs will be established, who will provide them, or how they will be funded.

And finally, the law did not include any language describing the standards to be used or the procedure to be followed in determining who will be granted early release. Administrative regulations outlining the actual process for review and release are in "to be determined" status.

These soon-to-be-adopted CDCR regulations are critical to providing the promised safeguards of enhancing public safety by releasing only nonviolent offenders. These safeguards should include standards to determine which offenses are nonviolent. Hopefully the regulations adopted will not include crimes like domestic violence or assault with a deadly weapon or rape of an unconscious person, or any crime in which a firearm or deadly weapon is used or great bodily injury inflicted.

As district attorney, it is important to recognize that the public has spoken on this issue and make every effort to ensure that their intentions are realized. I - along with many others - welcome the opportunity to help implement this initiative. I believe the voters supported this proposition because they, like I, want their justice system to reflect both measurable accountability and the opportunity for meaningful rehabilitation. That is why I am urging the governor to include career prosecutors and other law enforcement officials in the development of administrative regulations related to this new law. To realize the true potential of this initiative, the following should be included:

1. Exclude sex offenders from early parole;

2. Establish funding for the development and administration of meaningful rehabilitation programs to address the core issues related to recidivism;

3. Establish a parole process that allows real input from victims, prosecutors, and inmate representatives;

4. Provide a mechanism to consider not only the inmate's current commitment offense but also his or her prior criminal offenses;

5. Ensure that those released under this law are adequately supervised and subject to swift and appropriate sanctions for violations of their parole.

Prop. 57 pledged to protect and enhance public safety through rehabilitation and a reduction in criminal recidivism. That lofty goal can only be realized through effective administrative procedures that include input from victims and law enforcement professionals. Let's demand that the governor and proponents of Prop. 57 live up to their promise. The citizens of this great state deserve that.