California’s Proposition 57 is one of the most significant criminal justice reforms in our state’s history. Passed by an overwhelming majority of voters in November 2016, Proposition 57 promises many benefits for Registrants and their families, as well as other incarcerated individuals. However, the benefits of Proposition 57 will not be realized unless the regulations implementing them are consistent with Proposition 57’s purpose and intent.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is the state agency responsible for drafting and implementing the regulations under Proposition 57. CDCR has issued draft regulations for review and comment by the public. They are available here: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/proposition57/ (see link at top right of the page). After the public comments are received, CDCR will issue final regulations, so our best chance to influence this process is NOW!
While helpful to Registrants in some ways, CDCR’s draft regulations harm Registrants by excluding them from one of Proposition 57’s major benefits: a new early parole process for nonviolent offenders. That is, Proposition 57 mandates that “any person convicted of a nonviolent 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, CDCR’s draft regulations exclude Registrants from the definition of “nonviolent offender.” This means that, for the purposes of Proposition 57’s early parole process, anyone who has ever been convicted of any registrable offense is considered “violent,” and ineligible for relief.
ACSOL has already submitted public comments to CDCR regarding the draft regulations, but in order to have our voices heard we need EACH OF YOU to write a unique letter asking CDCR to revise the draft regulations and to fulfill the promise of Proposition 57 for Registrants and their families. Your letter should be unique (please don’t simply copy ACSOL’s letter). Here are a few suggestions:
- Begin by explaining why you are interested in Proposition 57 and the regulations (e.g., you are a Registrant or a family member, you know an incarcerated individual, or you care to see that CDCR faithfully implement the law)
- Thank CDCR for drafting regulations that allow Registrants to earn sentence reduction credits on the same terms as other inmates, for thing such as education, good behavior, and rehabilitative efforts
- Note your concern that CDCR has excluded those convicted of any registrable offense from the definition of “nonviolent offender” and this doing so is improper because many sex offenses are nonviolent, as defined by California law (Penal Code § 667.5(c))
- Note your concern that the draft regulations exclude any inmate who has ever been convicted of a registrable offense, even if the sentence they are currently serving is not for a sex offense (this means that anyone currently serving a sentence for failing to register as a sex offender, or for economic crimes, or for any other nonviolent, non-sex offense is excluded from the early parole process simply because they were convicted of a sex offense sometime in the past)
- Emphasize that CDCR cannot lawfully rewrite Proposition 57 by restricting the scope of the relief provided by California voters to all inmates in California, including Registrants
- Add anything else about the draft regulations that you wish to emphasize
Please send your letter by mail or email so that it arrives by the deadline of September 1, 2017 to:
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Regulation and Policy Management Branch
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
CDCR-Prop57-Comments@cdcr.ca.gov
Thank you for helping us make a difference for Registrants and their families in California!
I agree with the thrust of your article. But let me first correct some key language.
You say it denies this early parole to registrants. No, does not. There is not a single registrant in prison, no one in prison has to register under 290. Only those not in prison have to register — that is, only those who are NOT sex offenders have to register, as in they are not committing sex offenses so are not in prison.
What the regulations here say is that anyone convicted of a registrable offense, it does not say any registrant. And unfortunately it does not say “any prisoner serving time for an offenses included in 290,” so it does certainly sound retroactive to any prior offense that might have nothing to do with why you are in prison now. And mind you, that language does not care even if you get released from registration under this tier proposal.
I know that is what you were meaning, but if we are going to assert that we should not be called sex offenders, we should be called registrants, then please do not equate us with prisoners, which we absolutely are not. Punishment can be imposed on prisoners, but it cannot reimposed on registrants (yes, I know the courts have widely lied about what is punishment). Let us not undermine our own argument.
The regulations notice is 117 pages long. I’m not going to read through all that. But I found the key parts. And yes, it says anyone convicted of a sex offenses included in 290.
You can get to the actual regulations at:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/NCDR/2017NCR/17-05/17-05.pdf
And that clause I just paraphrased comes on page 34 under:
.
It says:
That sounds completely challengeable in court, that is the weakest justification I have ever seen. They are citing non-violence matters to justify it as violence. Saying sex offenders are highly likely to offend says nothing about violence (yes, I know how wrong even that statement they make is, but it isn’t even important, it does not apply to violence!) And citing a statute that says you must protect people from sexual exploitation has nothing to do with violence.
In fact, even these regulations point to Sec. 667.5 PC as defining what is a violent felony! And ALL sex offenses are not in there. But evening naming that stature, it grants this early parole to even these actually violent offenders under the circumstances stated:
It seems to me that the law already has defined who is a violent offender. I don’t know the language that was in that ballot measure, but I would look closely at it to see if the regulators even can change that definition in 667.5 for this isolated matter.
The ballot measure said NON-VIOLENT offenders must be granted this early parole. It did not give any leeway to name people even these regulations do not say are violent to be excluded from its relief — as in ALL sex offenders,not only those who are violent or only those who are listed in 667.5. These regulations say they are lily to reoffend, not that they are violent. These regulations are another blanket application based on the idea that all sex offenders are the same.
Clearly, someone very sick in the head wrote this bit about people convicted of 290, so sick that they decided to write in that people even they couldn’t call violent would be excluded from the relief.
If fighting this, we are not arguing that violent sex offenders should get this relief, as this early parole doesn’t apply to any violent offender. We are saying the regulations cannot exclude the relief beyond violent offenders, as it so clearly is doing.
But again, bad language in this article. We do not want to write in demanding that ALL sex offenders be grated this relief. We want to write in saying that all NON-VIOLENT sex offenders be granted the relief, and even say all sex offenders not listed in 667.5 be granted the relief. In fact, we should say that the relief should be granted to all non-violent prisoners currently in prison for registrable sex offenses as opposed to having convictions in the past that is not why they are in prison. If we simply demand no sex offenders be denied the relief, we are wasting our time, that will be ignored, even the courts would not allow that. This relief is specifically only for non-violent felons. This article above is just saying to demand sex offenders not be denied the relief, and that means ALL of them.
And readers here, mind you, if you ever land locked up again — and you better understand that you don’t have to do anything for that to happen, you are prime suspect always and will be framed if necessary, but all they have to do is have someone accuse you, and the jury will convict. The jury system is not what it ought to be.
This law is an immunity.
I present to you California Constitution Article 1, Section 7(b):
=====================================
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.
=====================================
The immunity is for all non-violent class or none at all. It’s right there in the constitution!
With that stated, why is it the same ordeal with the 1203.4 with registrants? Why aren’t they allowed to share the same immunities like all other former convicts?
I agree Lisa. And I wanna add that if they asked I’m sure they’d find that most prisoners would much rather be doing something productive than sitting around stewing about the eff’d up system and counting down the days till they’re released….