2016 California Proposition 57

Last updated
Proposition 57
Criminal Sentences & Juvenile Crime Proceedings
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes8,790,72364.46%
Light brown x.svgNo4,847,35435.54%
Valid votes13,638,07793.34%
Invalid or blank votes972,4326.66%
Total votes14,610,509100.00%
Registered voters/turnout19,411,77175.27%

2016 California Proposition 57 results map by county.svg
Results by county
Source: California Secretary of State [1]

Proposition 57 was an initiated California ballot proposition, approved on the November 8, 2016 ballot. The Proposition allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons, changes policies on juvenile prosecution, [2] and authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education.

Contents

The proposition

Due to the approval of the proposition, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will begin to implement these new parole and sentencing provisions. [3] The passage and implementation of the proposition may allow the state to save tens of millions of dollars each year.

Proposition 57 allows the parole board to release nonviolent prisoners once they have served the full sentence for their primary criminal offense. [4] Previously, prisoners were often required to serve extra time by a sentence enhancement, such as those for repeated offenders. [4] In addition, Proposition 57 requires the Department of Corrections to develop uniform parole credits, which reward prisoners' good behavior with reduced sentences. [4]

This proposition allows juvenile court judges to determine whether or not juveniles aged fourteen and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as an adult, repealing California Proposition 21, which was passed in March 2000. Proposition 21 gave prosecutors the sole authority to decide whether to try a young offender as a juvenile or adult. [5]

Proposition 57's proponents sought to restore juvenile court judges’ authority over juvenile offenders. [5] The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been under federal court supervision since the Supreme Court of the United States found that California's prison overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ( Brown v. Plata, 2011).

Proponents

Proponents of the measure spent $11.75 million. The top contribution was $4.14 million raised by Governor Brown. [4] Other proponents responsible for significant contributions included the California Democratic Party, Tom Steyer, Reed Hastings, and the Open Philanthropy Project. [4] The measure was also supported by the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times , [6] the San Francisco Chronicle , [7] and The Sacramento Bee . [8]

Opponents

Opponents of the Proposition argued that it would release potentially dangerous criminals due to improper classification of crimes as non-violent including domestic violence and child molestation. [9]

Opponents of the Proposition spent $641,326 fighting against the measure. Opponents that made high contributions included Los Angeles County police unions and a prosecutor lobbying group. [4]

Result

Proposition 57 was approved by voters in the November General Election, with 64.46% voting in favor. [10]

Related Research Articles

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Central California Women's Facility</span> Female prison in Chowchilla, California

Central California Women's Facility (CCWF) is a female-only California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation state prison located in Chowchilla, California. It is across the road from Valley State Prison. CCWF is the second largest female correctional facility in the United States, and houses the only State of California death row for women.

Proposition 83 of 2006 was a statute enacted by 70% of California voters on November 7, 2006, authored by State Senator George Runner and State Assemblywoman Sharon Runner. It was proposed by means of the initiative process as a version of the Jessica's Law proposals that had been considered in other states.

<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">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 5</span> 2008 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

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 a controversial 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 19</span> Failed measure to legalize marijuana

California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 36</span> Passed proposition to change the three-strikes law

Proposition 36, also titled A Change in the "Three Strikes Law" Initiative, was a California ballot measure that was passed in November 2012 to modify California's Three Strikes Law. The latter law punishes habitual offenders by establishing sentence escalation for crimes that were classified as "strikes", and requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 to life for a "third-strike offense."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California Proposition 47</span> Reduction of some crimes to misdemeanours

Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> 2016 California voter initiative that legalized recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 59</span> California ballot proposition

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 53</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 53 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It would have required voter approval for issuing revenue bonds exceeding $2 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 55</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 55 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot, regarding extending by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K–12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Proposition 55 will raise tax revenue by between $4 billion and $9 billion a year. Half of funds will go to schools and community colleges, up to $2 billion a year would go to Medi-Cal, and up to $1.5 billion will be saved and applied to debt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 60</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 60 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016 ballot which would have allowed the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) to prosecute an enforcement action anytime a condom is not visible in a pornographic film. The proposition failed to pass.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 62</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 62 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016, ballot that would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment and forced labor without possibility of parole. It would have applied retroactively to existing death sentences and increased the portion of life inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 66</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016, ballot to change procedures governing California state court challenges to capital punishment in California, designate superior court for initial petitions, limit successive petitions, require appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals, and exempt prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.

Lenore Anderson is the president of the Alliance for Safety and Justice, an organization whose stated mission is to "win new safety priorities in states across the country [by] partner[ing] with leaders and advocates to advance state reform through networking, coalition building, research, education and advocacy."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 20</span> Rejected initiative regarding non-violent felonies

California Proposition 20 was a proposed initiated state statute on the ballot in the 2020 California elections. This initiative would have added more crimes to the list of non-violent felonies for which early parole is restricted, and would have required DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murders of Claudia Maupin and Oliver Northup</span> 2013 double-murder

On April 14, 2013, Oliver "Chip" Northup Jr. and his wife Claudia Maupin were tortured, murdered, and mutilated by Daniel William Marsh in the couple's Davis, California home. Marsh, who was 15 years old at the time of the murders, had an extensive history of antisocial and violent behavior. A diagnosed psychopath, Marsh had long been fantasizing about torturing and murdering people and desired to become a serial killer. The high-profile murders have impacted the policy debate surrounding the sentencing of juvenile offenders.

References

  1. "Statement of Vote - November 8, 2016, General Election". December 16, 2016. Retrieved January 7, 2017.
  2. "Proposition 57. California General Election November 8, 2016. Official Voter Information Guide". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 10 October 2016.
  3. "Prop 57 Analysis | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State". voterguide.sos.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 2016-10-12. Retrieved 2016-10-11.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lagos, Marisa. "Election 2016: Proposition 57". KQED News. Archived from the original on 28 October 2016. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  5. 1 2 Lantigua-Williams, Juleyka (9 September 2016). "Treating Young Offenders Like Adults Is Bad Parenting". The Atlantic . Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  6. The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times (5 October 2016). "Prop 57 is a much-needed check on prosecutorial power. Vote yes". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  7. The Editorial Board of the San Francisco Chronicle (11 September 2016). "The Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 57". The San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  8. The Editorial Board of the Sacramento Bee (27 September 2016). "Prop. 57 would fix a mistake, help rehabilitate felons". The Sacramento Bee . Retrieved 28 October 2016.
  9. Stickney, B. "Guide to Proposition 57: Parole for Non-Violent Criminals". NBC San Diego. NBC 7 San Diego. Retrieved 9 January 2017.
  10. "California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (2016)". Ballotpedia . Retrieved 18 January 2017.