M7A1 Case Study 3

M7A1 Case Study 3

Introduction

As a result of a lawsuit brought by inmates of California State prisons, the U.S.

Supreme Court ordered the State of California to lessen the population of its prison by more than thirty-five thousand inmates over a two-year period of time. The state intends to achieve this reduction through legislation created to transfer responsibility for incarceration and supervision of certain low-risk criminals from the State to its fifty-eight counties. The legislation that accomplishes this transfer of responsibility is Assembly Bill 109, the Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109). AB 109 and a companion bill AB 117 transfer the responsibility of supervising certain low-risk criminals being released from the custody of the state back to their legal residence county for regulation by a county agency. The legislation also modifies the sentencing laws and penal code to allow new criminals to be sentenced to local prison instead of the state prison. From the beginning, AB 109 and AB 117 were widely criticized as a drastic and hasty implementation of the Supreme Court's Order. The media, and to some extent law enforcement agencies, painted a vision of how AB 109 and AB 117 would create unsafe communities. Reports of counties being inundated with vicious parolees and overwhelmed with new criminal activity and overcrowded jails were typical. The Grand Jury sought to better understand AB 109 and AB 117 and whether Santa Clara County was adequately prepared for its implementation (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Fact Sheet, 2011).

Policy Analysis of the Case

The objective of AB 109 and AB 117 legislation is to reduce the prison population of California. It further gives counties the option to invest in alternatives to jail, including out-of-custody rehabilitative treatment or programs. The legislation makes it clear from the outset that:

No inmates ...