More judicial discretion needed in justice system
Last September, David Coulson walked out of a California prison a free man. He had spent 20 years in custody and had 10 years left before he would be eligible for parole in 2032 at the age of 65 — a significant punishment. And what, one might ask, was the heinous crime that saddled him with such an onerous sentence? Stealing $14.08 and a digital scale from a residential garage in 2002.
By now, we have all heard stories like Coulson's — example after example of California's draconian sentencing laws. The Legislature more recently abandoned the most severe excesses that made us the mass incarceration capital of the country, exacerbated disparities, drained taxpayer resources and failed to make us safer. However, the legacy remains in the form of thousands of people serving life (or virtual life) sentences for nonviolent crimes — like Coulson. Thousands more are serving lengthy sentences under other excessive sentencing regimes — the vestiges of the failed tough-on-crime era of the 1990s.
Today, California has the second-largest prison population in the United States — nearly 100,000 Californians are currently incarcerated in our overcrowded state prisons (at an average annual cost of $106,000 per incarcerated person). California also leads the nation in life sentences, with 32% of the incarcerated population serving life or virtual life sentences, though researchers have found that lengthy sentences and high rates of incarceration have diminishing returns in reducing crime rates.
Today, almost half of the people in California prisons have already served at least 10 years of their sentence. According to data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 57% of all individuals in prison are rated “low risk” to reoffend. Some 88% of individuals in prison over 50 years old are “low risk,” and 95% of individuals that have served 20 or more years are “low risk.”
Why do we keep spending so much to keep people in cages that pose a low risk to the rest of us?
Recognizing both the significant cost and diminishing returns of excessively long sentences, the California Legislature has taken steps to safely and equitably release those whose continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice through “second look” resentencing. Through this process, the court considers factors, including an incarcerated person's age, physical and mental health, and conduct while in prison, to determine whether they would pose a risk to public safety if they were released and whether their continued incarceration is in the interest of justice. Crime victims are also involved in the process and have the opportunity to provide their input.
While the possibility of “second look” resentencing has existed in California law for decades, a series of recent bills has substantially improved the process and broadened its reach. New laws increase the number of authorities that can initiate resentencing to include the prosecuting attorney and provide additional funding to the CDCR to make resentencing referrals and recommendations.
These changes in the law reflect the data demonstrating that criminal involvement diminishes dramatically after age 40 (even more so after age 50), that lengthy sentences do not deter crime and that crime victims overwhelmingly favor reducing sentencing lengths for people in prison who are assessed as a low risk to public safety.
Coulson's release is the product of “second look” resentencing. He was recommended for release by CDCR based on his exceptional conduct while in custody and in recognition of the substantial portion of his sentence which he had already served. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge did not hesitate to act on CDCR's recommendation, but a gap in the law means the court could not have acted on their own motion to remedy a punishment which, the judge said, “shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.” The Legislature is poised to fix that.
This year, Assemblymembers
Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, and Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, have authored AB 600 (Equity in Resentencing), which aims to enhance and improve the process for “second look” resentencing and ensure the resentencing statute is applied as the Legislature intended: to remedy the injustice of excessive sentences and safely release incarcerated Californians who pose a low risk to public safety. For David Coulson and so many others, it's a change that can't come soon enough.
As Assemblymember Ting told me, “While I have successfully championed resentencing efforts, I know there's room for improvement. There are potentially many more Californians like Mr. Coulson, whose extremely long sentences are unjustly harsh and deserve a `second look.' My bill makes technical and procedural changes to current law to achieve fairness and equity in the application of such reviews — goals worth aiming for.”