California has long been a very big and very interesting and very complicated state when it comes to criminal justice and sentencing reform. This fascinating state story continued with a lot of new bills being signed yesterday by Gov Gavin Newsom. This local article (which somewhat tracks this official document from the Governors office) provides some of the details and provides especially helpful links to the underlying legislation. Here are excerpts focused on criminal justice reforms with my bolding added for follow-up comments:
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed landmark bills into law on Wednesday, the last day available for the governor to sign legislation. The docket included racial justice, criminal justice, and policing reform, as well as legislation related to cannabis, rental housing, and banning hazardous chemicals and ingredients in cosmetics.
AB 3121 and AB 3070 by Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber, PhD (D-San Diego) will establish anti-discrimination jury selection and "will advance the conversation of Reparations and develop ideas for how to overcome implementation challenges," respectively, according to the CA State Assembly Democratic Caucus.AB 2542, also known as the California Racial Justice Act, by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) prohibits the use of race, ethnicity or national origin to seek or obtain convictions or sentences....
Newsom signed bills related to criminal justice and police reform as well on Wednesday.
AB 1185 authorizes counties to establish a sheriff oversight board.
AB 1196 bans police use of chokeholds.
AB 1506 creates a division within the Department of Justice to review the use-of-force policy of the agency and make recommendations, as well as require a state prosecutor to investigate officer involved shootings.
AB 901 will make sure youth are referred to community programs rather than placing them on probation or having them be a "ward of the court."
SB 203 establishes stronger protections for minors who are interrogated by police.
AB 2542 requires judges to reconsider convictions and sentences if defense attorneys were able to prove that people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity or national origin were routinely charged with a more serious offense, or sentenced more harshly, than defendants of other races....
SB 1290 will expand on earlier efforts to decrease fines and fees on youth and families involved with the justice system.SB 203 ups the age of right to legal counsel for youth aged 15 and younger to youth aged 17 and younger.
SB 480 standardizes police uniforms, making specific mention that police cannot wear a uniform with a camouflage print or other patterned material that closely resembles an army or state active militia uniform....
SB 823 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review takes the first, formal step of closing the Division of Juvenile Justice, which will help to provide youth rehabilitative services closer to home.
AB 901 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson), which will end the practice of referring youth who are having problems at school to probation programs.
AB 1950 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager (D-Los Angeles), which caps probation terms to a maximum of one year for misdemeanor offenses and two years for felonies....
Newsom also signed the following bills:...
- AB 732 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – County jails: prisons: incarcerated pregnant persons....
- AB 1304 by Assemblymember Marie Waldron (R-Escondido) – California MAT Re-Entry Incentive Program.
- AB 1775 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – False reports and harassment.
- AB 2321 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Juvenile court records: access.
- AB 2425 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Juvenile police records.
- AB 2512 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Death penalty: person with an intellectual disability.
- AB 2606 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Criminal justice: supervised release file.
- AB 3043 by Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles) – Corrections: confidential calls.
- AB 3234 by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) – Public Safety.
- SB 1126 by Senator Brian W. Jones (R-Santee) – Juvenile court records.
This long list of signed bills has my head spinning, and the title of this post highlights that I am particularly curious and particularly uncertain about how consequential all these bills are likely to be. I have bolded the two bills that, as a sentencing fan, strike me as particularly intriguing and potentially very consequential.
AB 1950, which caps the duration of probation terms, has been described by REFORM Alliance as the "most transformative probation reform bill in the country." This new Fox News article, headlined "Jay-Z, Meek Mill's REFORM Alliance celebrate 'major victory' with Calif. Gov. Newsom passing probation bill," talks about this new bill and the efforts and people behind making it law. Here is a snippet:
On Wednesday, REFORM announced on Instagram it was celebrating a "MAJOR REFORM VICTORY." Through its verified Instagram account, the alliance thanked California Gov. Gavin Newsom for signing AB 1950 into law. "This bill will help put hundreds of thousands of Californians on probation in positions to succeed and exit the criminal justice system for good. Thank you @GavinNewsom!" the Instagram post reads. In a follow-up post, the organization wrote, "This is just the beginning. This is how we #fightdifferent."...
REFORM's CEO Van Jones explained in a video statement that the law will essentially "make people be on probation for much less time" and will "give people a much better shot at getting out of that system, getting what they need and getting on their way." The premise is to reduce the number of probation violations.
AB 2542, which provides for a California Racial Justice Act, seems to be the biggest and broadest racial justice act ever passed by any state because it seems to apply to all convictions and sentences and not just death sentences as did comparable Racial Justice Act passed in Kentucky and North Carolina years ago. Notably, Michelle Alexander wrote this op-ed last week endorsing this bill and explaining its reach this way (with my emphasis added):
The new law will make it possible for a person charged or convicted of a crime to challenge racial, ethnic, and national-origin bias in their case through relevant evidence, including:
▪ Explicit racial bias by an attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror involved in the case.
▪ Use of racially discriminatory language in court and during the criminal proceedings, whether or not intentional.
▪ Racial bias in jury selection, such as removing all or nearly all Black, brown, Native, Indigenous and people of color from the jury.
▪ Statistical disparities in charging and convictions — that is, evidence that people of one race are disproportionately charged or convicted of a specific crime or enhancement.
▪ Statistical disparities in sentencing — that is, evidence that people of one race receive longer or more severe sentences, including the death penalty or life without parole.
I believe that the new California Racial Justice Act only applies prospectively, and so we will not see extensive litigation over past sentences as we did in North Carolina (and which led to the repeal of that state's Racial Justice Act). But even as just a prospective measure, I am inclined to predict that this new statute could prove highly consequential in all sorts of ways.
I am hopeful that smart folks who focus on the California criminal justice system might soon blog about to these bills and their potential impacts. And, of course, another wave of reform in California might not be far away: as this article highlights under the headline "Three ballot measures test attitudes on crime in California," a set of criminal justice initiatives being put to California voters next month will add to this remarkable 2020 reform chapter in the Golden State.
No comments:
Post a Comment