Earlier this summer, the lenient sentence given to Stanford student Brock Turner for a sexual assault on an unconscious young woman sparked national outrage. Friday, he was released from jail after serving only half of that. Paul Elias has this story for AP, with extensive background on the case.
What lessons should we draw from this double outrage?
First, the excessively lenient sentence demonstrates why we cannot vest too much discretion to judges to grant leniency. In other words, it demonstrates--conclusively, in my mind--that we will always need "mandatory minimums" in some form for some crimes.
Second, Turner's release in 3 months when sentenced to 6 demonstrates that we need to be very careful with "credits" against sentences and award them only when they serve an important function.
Third, given the number of people guilty of serious crimes who are now sentenced to county jail in California, it is imperative that we build enough jail capacity to hold them for every single day for which they are sentenced, reduced only by those judiciously awarded credits.
What lessons should we draw from this double outrage?
First, the excessively lenient sentence demonstrates why we cannot vest too much discretion to judges to grant leniency. In other words, it demonstrates--conclusively, in my mind--that we will always need "mandatory minimums" in some form for some crimes.
Second, Turner's release in 3 months when sentenced to 6 demonstrates that we need to be very careful with "credits" against sentences and award them only when they serve an important function.
Third, given the number of people guilty of serious crimes who are now sentenced to county jail in California, it is imperative that we build enough jail capacity to hold them for every single day for which they are sentenced, reduced only by those judiciously awarded credits.
So how did Turner get six months in county jail in the first place? After all, section 289(e) of the California Penal Code provides:
As a general rule, sentencing judges in California have the discretion to grant probation rather than impose the sentence nominally required by the statute for the particular offense. They have broad power to impose conditions of probation, and a number of months in county jail is often specified as a condition. This was traditionally known in the trade as "felony local." (I don't know what it's called now in the Brave New World of Realignment.)
There are, however, some crimes for which a grant of probation is prohibited by statute. Way back in the 70s, California had a "Use a Gun, Go to Prison" law made necessary by judges granting probation to gun-wielding robbers.
California does have a no-probation law for sex crimes, Penal Code section 1203.065, but it does not cover this offense. In its typical fashion, the California Legislature ignores problems like this and then reacts after a case makes big headlines. On June 16, an agriculture bill that had passed the Assembly and had nothing whatever to do with crime, AB 2888, was "gutted and amended" in the Senate to become a fix for this problem.
If a bill to fix the same problem had been introduced at the beginning of the legislative session, before the Brock Turner case, I would have bet my last dollar that the Public Safety Committee of either house would have killed it. After the outrage and headlines, the bill passed unanimously in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the full Senate, and the Assembly Public Safety Committee. It passed the full Assembly 77-1. Better late than never.
That brings us to those credits. There are some valid reasons to give prisoners credits reducing their sentence somewhat. Giving credit for good behavior in prison, with a credible threat of revocation for bad behavior, is useful in dealing with the extremely difficult problem of maintaining order in prison. Giving credit for actual work is useful in boosting prison employment, something we need a lot more of.
Credits are not limited to those purposes in California. Credits are handed out excessively, and when they are revoked for good reason they are often restored without good reason. Simply put, credits are given willy-nilly so that our correctional authorities can shirk their duty to keep criminals locked up for the period they deserve and were sentenced to. The last thing we need in this state is to empower the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award credits without statutory authorization, which is exactly what Gov. Brown's Jailbreak Initiative, Proposition 57, would do.
Is there any reason to give good behavior credits to a person like Brock Turner, who is sentenced to county jail for months as a condition of probation for a crime for which he could be sent to state prison for years. No. The possibility of revocation of probation and receipt of the prison sentence he actually deserved gives him plenty of incentive to behave himself in the county jail.
Good behavior credits should be limited to inmates who are serving the sentence prescribed by law for the offense they were convicted of. As a matter of justice, those who have already received the leniency of "felony local" should not receive a double leniency, and there is no need to do so as an incentive for good behavior.
Do we need to grant credits in cases like this because the jails are overcrowded? We certainly do have an overcrowding problem in California's county jails. Both Realignment and Proposition 47 have partially "solved" the state government's prison overcrowding problem by the simple expedient of dumping the problem on the county governments. The state should not evade its responsibilities in this manner. The California Constitution forbids release of prisoners for the purpose of reducing overcrowding and requires the Legislature to fund the necessary space. The Legislature can and should appropriate the money needed for justice and safety instead of blowing it on twin tunnels and bullet trains.
(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.Isn't that a minimum of three years? No, at least not at present.
As a general rule, sentencing judges in California have the discretion to grant probation rather than impose the sentence nominally required by the statute for the particular offense. They have broad power to impose conditions of probation, and a number of months in county jail is often specified as a condition. This was traditionally known in the trade as "felony local." (I don't know what it's called now in the Brave New World of Realignment.)
There are, however, some crimes for which a grant of probation is prohibited by statute. Way back in the 70s, California had a "Use a Gun, Go to Prison" law made necessary by judges granting probation to gun-wielding robbers.
California does have a no-probation law for sex crimes, Penal Code section 1203.065, but it does not cover this offense. In its typical fashion, the California Legislature ignores problems like this and then reacts after a case makes big headlines. On June 16, an agriculture bill that had passed the Assembly and had nothing whatever to do with crime, AB 2888, was "gutted and amended" in the Senate to become a fix for this problem.
If a bill to fix the same problem had been introduced at the beginning of the legislative session, before the Brock Turner case, I would have bet my last dollar that the Public Safety Committee of either house would have killed it. After the outrage and headlines, the bill passed unanimously in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the full Senate, and the Assembly Public Safety Committee. It passed the full Assembly 77-1. Better late than never.
That brings us to those credits. There are some valid reasons to give prisoners credits reducing their sentence somewhat. Giving credit for good behavior in prison, with a credible threat of revocation for bad behavior, is useful in dealing with the extremely difficult problem of maintaining order in prison. Giving credit for actual work is useful in boosting prison employment, something we need a lot more of.
Credits are not limited to those purposes in California. Credits are handed out excessively, and when they are revoked for good reason they are often restored without good reason. Simply put, credits are given willy-nilly so that our correctional authorities can shirk their duty to keep criminals locked up for the period they deserve and were sentenced to. The last thing we need in this state is to empower the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award credits without statutory authorization, which is exactly what Gov. Brown's Jailbreak Initiative, Proposition 57, would do.
Is there any reason to give good behavior credits to a person like Brock Turner, who is sentenced to county jail for months as a condition of probation for a crime for which he could be sent to state prison for years. No. The possibility of revocation of probation and receipt of the prison sentence he actually deserved gives him plenty of incentive to behave himself in the county jail.
Good behavior credits should be limited to inmates who are serving the sentence prescribed by law for the offense they were convicted of. As a matter of justice, those who have already received the leniency of "felony local" should not receive a double leniency, and there is no need to do so as an incentive for good behavior.
Do we need to grant credits in cases like this because the jails are overcrowded? We certainly do have an overcrowding problem in California's county jails. Both Realignment and Proposition 47 have partially "solved" the state government's prison overcrowding problem by the simple expedient of dumping the problem on the county governments. The state should not evade its responsibilities in this manner. The California Constitution forbids release of prisoners for the purpose of reducing overcrowding and requires the Legislature to fund the necessary space. The Legislature can and should appropriate the money needed for justice and safety instead of blowing it on twin tunnels and bullet trains.
If Prop 57 does not pass, who has standing and plans to sue the AG for stipulating to the 3 judge panel orders giving generous credits. At the very least how about the Legislature for failing to appropriate sufficient funds as required under the CA Constitution to avoid the prison releases due to overcrowding.
Unless Loretta Sanchez pulls off the upset of the year in the Senate race, and I would not bet on it, we are going to have a new Jerry Brown-appointed Attorney General for the next two years. Bringing a suit doesn't seem like a good idea. I think efforts would be better spent electing a good Attorney General two years from now. It's not impossible. We came within a hair in 2010.
Judicial enforcement of the funding provision of the Victims' Bill of Rights presents a separation of powers problem, but it is one we will be looking into, as well as the standing issue.
"Credits are handed out excessively, and when they are revoked for good reason they are often restored without good reason. Simply put, credits are given willy-nilly .. [shirking the] duty to keep criminals locked up for the period they deserve and
were sentenced to."
This is sadly so dead-on true in NY at state and county facilities! !
I would only substitute automatically or mindlessly for "willy-nilly" in my experience.
Due to law, there is not much in NY which we can do other than to stop liberals
from so undeservedly restoring behavior credits.