Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976

Last updated

The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 was a bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown to changes sentencing requirements in the California Penal Code. The act converted most sentences from an "indeterminate" sentence length at the discretion of the parole board to a "determinate" sentence length specified by the state legislature. The act was one of the largest drivers in a ninefold increase in California's prison population in the two decades after the act passed.

Contents

Origins

California created its first parole system in 1893 as a mechanism to relieve prison overcrowding by granting early release. [1] In a 1914 California Supreme Court case, Roberts v. Duffy, the court declared: "the purpose of the legislature in creating a parole system [...] is to permit the liberation of a prisoner on parole at the earliest period when permitted by law and when on a consideration of the merits of each individual case, parole ought, in the judgment of the board, to be granted." [2]

California adopted indeterminate sentencing in 1917, as part of a national trend towards indeterminate sentences meant to encourage rehabilitation. In an indeterminate sentencing framework, for most crimes the sentence is a range, for example "5 years to life". Under that sentence, after 5 years, or perhaps less time with good behavior, the incarcerated person is reviewed by a parole board periodically until they are found suitable for release. Per the California Supreme Court in 1918: "It is generally recognized by the courts and by modern penologists that the purpose of the indeterminate sentence law, like other modern laws in relation to the administration of the criminal law, is to mitigate the punishment which would otherwise be imposed upon the offender. These laws place emphasis upon the reformation of the offender. They seek to make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime. They endeavor to put before the prisoner great incentive to well-doing. [...] [T]he purpose is to strengthen his will to do right and lessen his temptation to do wrong." [3]

The practical effects of indeterminate sentences evolved over the next several decades. The Prison Reorganization Act of 1944 established the California Adult Authority, which among other responsibilities functioned as the California parole board, with expanded power to review parole candidates using "psychiatric and other diagnostic aids" and to release prisoners. The Adult Authority became the in-practice sentencing agency for prisoners, because courts could only sentence "for the term prescribed by law", and the Adult Authority had broad discretion over when a prisoner was actually released. Because it had nearly all control over releases, the Adult Authority became a focal point for the press whenever someone released to parole committed a high-profile crime. This feedback loop resulted in the Adult Authority shifting to delaying parole until a prisoner was thought to be "ready to go home" — a different standard from the original goal that parole be granted as early as possible, to continue rehabilitation in the community.

A series of lawsuits and subsequent legislation in the 1970s laid the groundwork for a move away from indeterminate sentences. Morrissey v. Brewer required that parole only be revoked in accordance with due process, which invited scrutiny of all discretionary decisions in the prison system. California Supreme Court cases In re Lynch and In re Foss challenged the constitutionality of broad and variable indeterminate sentences under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [4]

The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 was part of a national trend towards determinate sentences during the 1970s, to provider greater sentencing equity. It had bi-partisan support, with liberal politicians and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the Prisoners' Union supporting the act because it theoretically provided greater sentencing accountability and procedural fairness, especially in regards to race, ethnic and educational background. [5] [6] Conservative politicians and law enforcement agencies supported the legislation because it reduced the Adult Authority's ability to release prisoners early and because they thought it would result in longer prison terms. [7]

Legislation

Senate Bill 42, aka the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976, was written by state senator John Nejedly and signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown. It went into effect on July 1, 1977.

Purpose

In a reversal from California's historical legislative belief that a primary purpose of prison is rehabilitation, the act amended the penal code to assert that "the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment": [8]

The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances. The Legislature further finds and declares that the elimination of disparity and the provision of uniformity of sentences can best be achieved by determinate sentences fixed by statute in proportion to the seriousness of the offense as determined by the Legislature to be imposed by the court with specified discretion.

Sentencing Policy

Instead of leaving prison terms to the discretion of the Adult Authority, the act specified that the legislature must define lower, middle, and upper prison terms for most offenses. For example, robbery under indeterminate sentencing might have a term of "5 years to life". Under determinate sentencing, the lower, middle, and upper prison terms might be 5, 6, and 7 years respectively.

Some offenses, like first-degree murder, continued to have an indeterminate life sentence.

Sentencing

Under the determinate sentencing law, if a judge chose a prison sentence as punishment for a given offense (as opposed to probation), the defendant would be sentenced to the middle prison term unless aggravating or mitigating circumstances justified sentencing to the upper or lower term. The judge had to state the reasons for the sentencing decision.

The base term would then be extended by enhancements for specific details of the crime, for example the use of a firearm, great loss of property, or great bodily injury, as well as the defendant's prior criminal history. [9]

Parole

Under the initial legislation, parole for most prisoners on a determinate sentence was limited to one year, with parole violations resulting in a return to prison limited to an additional six months in prison. Parole was reframed as an additive period of carceral supervision rather than a continuation of a prison sentence.

Parole release as a mechanism to reduce the prison population in times of overcrowding was essentially eliminated as part of the legislation. [10]

"Good time credits"

As part of creating greater sentence predictability, the legislation formalized good time credits that would reduce a prison time by up to 1/3rd automatically unless taken away for misconduct or non-participation.

Other structural changes

The Adult Authority and the Women's Board of Terms and Paroles were replaced with a Community Release Board appointed by the governor. The Community Release Board was responsible for reviewing sentencing decisions for equity, hearing appeals to denial of "good time" credits, determining if parole should be revoked, and for applying the law retroactively.

The Judicial Council of California, the policymaking body of the California courts, was instructed to formulate sentencing guidance, for example when to grant probation, criteria for enhancements, and criteria for selecting upper or lower terms. The Judicial Council was also tasked with reviewing and publishing data on determinate sentences.

Prosecutorial discretion increased with the adoption of determinate sentences, as which charges and enhancements a prosecutor decided to pursue had a great effect on the sentence length. This in turn gave prosecutors greater leverage in plea bargains.

The general effect of these structural changes was to remove discretion from the parole board and increase the power of the legislature, the judiciary, and prosecutors. [7]

Immediate amendments to determinate sentencing

Determinate sentencing was substantially amended within two years of being enacted. In 1977, Assembly Bill 476, the "Boatwright Bill", expanded the set of enhancements and created the stacking of enhancements in some cases. [11]

In 1978, Senate Bill 709 increased the middle and upper terms for "violent" felonies. [12]

Also in 1978, Senate Bill 1057, the "Public Protection Bill", increased the parole supervision period for people serving a determinate sentence to three years, and increased the parole supervision period for people serving a life sentence to five years. As these time periods were often comparable to or longer than the original prison sentence, the parole agency thus gained significant power over someone's state supervision experience, and the potential time that someone on parole could spend back in prison on parole violations was greatly increased. [13]

Impact

Anticipated effects

While the legislation had bi-partisan support, some criminologists predicted that the goal of more equitable sentencing would be undermined by the enhancement system and increased prosecutorial discretion. Researchers also predicted that sentence lengths would go up over time, because legislators could now respond to public pressure to look "tough on crime" with revisions to the sentencing terms available for particular crimes. Per one state senator interviewed regarding the legislation: [14]

Public attitudes have gotten tougher over the last five years I have been in the Senate and the legislature that has responded to the get-tough view. The people are tired of violent crime and want the legislature to "do something" about it. The legislature doesn't know what to do to solve the crime problem and is frustrated with unsuccessful efforts at rehabilitation. The only thing we can do immediately is raise penalties. Some tough bills get votes now [that] they would not have gotten several years ago.

Per a New York Times article printed on the date the law took effect, "A new state sentencing law took effect today with no one quite sure whether it would, as intended, make the criminal justice system here more equitable and more of a deterrent, or whether it would merely confuse those issues." The article went on to summarize the zeitgeist captured by the law: "The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976, as amended in recent weeks, represents an increasing belief among liberals as well as conservatives that rehabilitation in prison rarely works and is difficult, if not impossible, to judge. Similar legislation to eliminate or curb the power of parole boards is being debated in other states and in the United States Senate." [15]

Prison population growth

Prison commitments per 100,000 people in California immediately rose from 32.4 in 1977 to 39.2 in 1978, which at the time was the highest rate in the history of the California Department of Corrections. [16]

The combination of increasingly long prison sentences and the elimination of parole as an early release mechanism to manage prison populations resulted in an explosion in the prison population over the next two decades. At the end of 1977, 17,338 people were in California prisons. By the end of 1997, 155,276 were in California prisons, a nearly 9x increase.

Graph showing the California prison population over time (1925 - 2019) California prison population over time (1925 - 2019).png
Graph showing the California prison population over time (1925 - 2019)

20 out of the 35 currently operating state prisons were built in response to overcrowding during this window. The California Department of Corrections budget ballooned accordingly, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the state budget: the $346 million budget in 1977 grew to a $4.4 billion budget by 1997. [17] Despite the capacity increase, the rapid population growth resulted in significant prison overcrowding that culminated in a series of lawsuits the put the state's prison medical care system into receivership and put the state under a court order to reduce prison overcrowding. See Prisons in California#Prison population and overcrowding for further details.

As Judge Steven Z. Perren, a Superior Court Judge for Ventura County, stated during a 1990 hearing on determinate sentencing: "The judges are receiving a mixed message. They're to be more discriminating on who should be sent to prison, yet more laws are passed requiring mandatory incarceration." [18]

Recidivism

Under the guidance that prison was purely for punishment, the switch to determinate sentences came with decreased spending on rehabilitation. People serving time under a determinate sentence no longer had to demonstrate remorse and accountability to a parole board to be found suitable for parole and had fewer incentives to participate in or benefit from rehabilitative programming.

In 1978, 28% of people on parole returned to prison within 3 years. In 1988, 87% of people on parole returned to prison within 3 years. [19]

In the 1990 hearing on determinate sentencing, T.L. Clannon, M.D., Superintendent at the California Medical Facility, discussed his opinion piece "Rehabilitation Was Working; Determinate Sentencing Results in a Greater Recidivism Rate and Leads to More Victims of Crimes." [20]

In that same hearing, Judge Steven Z. Perren shared: "You got to deal with the drug problem in a realistic way and sending them to prison is not dealing with it in a realistic way. I mean that's the truth of it. You've got to do something else, than lock a drug abuser up." [20]

Response

The California prison system underwent a number of Major court cases and policy changes in the decades after the implementation of the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976, in response to rapid prison population growth and significant prison overcrowding.

California Governor Jerry Brown, who signed the act into law during his 1975–1983 period as governor, was re-elected to the California governorship from 2011-2019. During this second tenure, he sought to reduce the prison population and end court oversight of the California prison system, saying "The incentive power of the indeterminate sentence is crucial and something I really didn’t pay attention to back in 1977" and "Sentencing should not be the play toy of ambitious politics [...] It ought to be the judgment of serious minded individuals who are not running for office but have in mind public safety and have in mind the changes men and women can make over time." [21]

Governor Brown sponsored 2016 California Proposition 57, which was approved by 65% of California voters and allowed the parole board to release people convicted of "non-violent" crimes once they served the full sentence for their primary offense. It also required the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to develop uniform parole credits for good behavior and rehabilitative achievements, to incentivize rehabilitation.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parole</span> Provisional release of a prisoner who agrees to certain conditions

Parole is a form of early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by behavioral conditions, including checking-in with their designated parole officers, or else they may be rearrested and returned to prison.

A parole board is a panel of people who decide whether an offender should be released from prison on parole after serving at least a minimum portion of their sentence as prescribed by the sentencing judge. Parole boards are used in many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and New Zealand. A related concept is the board of pardons and paroles, which may deal with pardons and commutations as well as paroles.

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

In law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prison reform</span> Reform of the prison system

Prison reform is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons, improve the effectiveness of a penal system, or implement alternatives to incarceration. It also focuses on ensuring the reinstatement of those whose lives are impacted by crimes.

Truth in sentencing (TIS) is a collection of different but related public policy stances on sentencing of those convicted of crimes in the justice system. In most contexts, it refers to policies and legislation that aim to abolish or curb parole so that convicts serve the period to which they have been sentenced. Truth in sentencing advocates relate such policies in terms of the public's right to know. They argue, for example, that it is deceptive to sentence an individual to "seven-to-nine years" and then release them after they have served only six years.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation</span> Law enforcement agency in California, USA

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is the penal law enforcement agency of the government of California responsible for the operation of the California state prison and parole systems. Its headquarters are in Sacramento.

The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. It is part of the United States Department of Justice.

Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law.

In the United States, life imprisonment is amongst the most severe punishments provided by law, depending on the state, and second only to the death penalty. According to a 2013 study, 1 of every 20,000 inhabitants of the U.S. were imprisoned for life as of 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prisons in California</span>

The California State Prison System is a system of prisons, fire camps, contract beds, reentry programs, and other special programs administered by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Institutions to incarcerate approximately 117,000 people as of April 2020. CDCR owns and operates 34 prisons throughout the state and operates 1 prison leased from a private company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in the United States</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in the United States

In the United States, sentencing law varies by jurisdiction. The jurisdictions in the US legal system are federal, state, regional, and county. Each jurisdictional entity has governmental bodies that create common, statutory, and regulatory law, although some legal issues are handled more often at the federal level, while other issues are the domain of the states. Civil rights, immigration, interstate commerce, and constitutional issues are subject to federal jurisdiction. Issues such as domestic relations, which includes domestic violence; marriage and divorce; corporations; property; contracts; and criminal laws are generally governed by states, unless there is federal preemption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York State Division of Parole</span>

The New York State Division of Parole was an agency of the government of New York within the New York State Correctional Services from 1930 to 2011. § 259. "1. There shall be in the executive department of state government a state division of parole" responsible for parole, the supervised release of a prisoner before the completion of his/her sentence. In 2011, the agency merged with the Department of Correctional Services to form the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life.

Life imprisonment in Sweden is a term of imprisonment for an indeterminate length. It is the most severe punishment available in Sweden. Swedish law states that the longest punishment, other than life imprisonment, is a fixed prison term of 18 years. However, a prisoner convicted to life imprisonment may appeal a partially served life sentence to the District Court of Örebro for "fixing" the sentence. Upon success, the sentence is commuted to a fixed sentence of any number of years considered proportionate to the severity of the crime, after which standard Swedish parole regulations apply. Due to new legislation taking effect in January 2022, any offender aged 18 at the commission of the murder can be sentenced to life imprisonment. Previously, an age limit of 21 applied. Prior to 2006, all life sentences were issued without the possibility of parole, although executive clemency was widely issued to commute life sentences to fixed-time sentences in a similar way now exercised by the judiciary. This procedure is the only way a sentence longer than 18 years may be issued in Sweden.

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021.

A rehabilitation policy within criminology, is one intending to reform criminals rather than punish them and/or segregate them from the greater community.

California's Public Safety Realignment initiative, officially known as "Realignment", was a combination of two bills passed by the state of California, with the ultimate goal of reducing its state prison population by shifting much of that population to county jails. It was the result of a court-order in response to shortfalls in medical and mental health care for the state's prison population.

References

  1. ↑ Kara Dansky (2008). "Understanding California Sentencing". p. 57. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07.
  2. ↑ California Supreme Court. "Roberts v. Duffy". Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  3. ↑ California Supreme Court. "In re Lee". Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  4. ↑ April Kestell Cassou and Brian Taugher (January 1, 1978). Determinate Sentencing in California: The New Numbers Game. p. 9. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  5. ↑ Prisoners Union. "Prisoners Union" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-06.
  6. ↑ "Joint Committee for Revision of the Penal Code: Hearing on Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing". March 28, 1990. p. viii. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  7. 1 2 Lipson, Albert J.; Peterson, Mark A. (1980). "California Justice Under Determinate Sentencing: A Review and Agenda For Research". Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  8. ↑ Senator Yee (December 6, 2010). "An act to amend Section 1170 of the Penal Code, relating to sentencing". Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  9. ↑ April Kestell Cassou and Brian Taugher (January 1, 1978). Determinate Sentencing in California: The New Numbers Game. p. 23. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  10. ↑ Albert J. Lipson and Mark A. Peterson (1980). "California Justice Under Determinate Sentencing: A Review and Agenda For Research". p. 38. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  11. ↑ (State), California (May 23, 1977). "California. Supreme Court. Records and Briefs: S027672". Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  12. ↑ Albert J. Lipson and Mark A. Peterson (1980). "California Justice Under Determinate Sentencing: A Review and Agenda For Research". p. 5. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  13. ↑ Sara Mayeux (2011). "The Origins of Back-end Sentencing in California: A Dispatch from the Archives" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-06.
  14. ↑ Albert J. Lipson and Mark A. Peterson (1980). "California Justice Under Determinate Sentencing: A Review and Agenda For Research". p. 12. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  15. ↑ Les Ledbetter (July 2, 1977). "California Doubtful Over Sentencing Law".
  16. ↑ Albert J. Lipson and Mark A. Peterson (1980). "California Justice Under Determinate Sentencing: A Review and Agenda For Research". p. vi. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  17. ↑ State of California Department of Finance. "Program Expenditures by Fund" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-06.
  18. ↑ "Joint Committee for Revision of the Penal Code: Hearing on Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing". March 28, 1990. p. x. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  19. ↑ "Joint Committee for Revision of the Penal Code: Hearing on Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing". March 28, 1990. p. 55. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  20. 1 2 "Joint Committee for Revision of the Penal Code: Hearing on Determinate and Indeterminate Sentencing". March 28, 1990. p. 26. Archived from the original on 2020-06-06.
  21. ↑ Morain, Dan (December 22, 2018). "What Jerry Brown fixed and couldn't fix". Calmatters. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.