Prop. 57: Don’t slash sentences for nonviolent state prisoners

CHRONICLE’S VIEW

“Even before it got on the ballot, Proposition 57 was the subject of rewrites, lawsuits and public angst. So it’s all the more important for voters to see Prop. 57 clearly for what it is: a measure that will encourage nonviolent offenders to use their prison time to improve themselves. Prop. 57 will also put the decision of whether to try a juvenile as an adult in the hands of a judge — not a prosecutor. Here’s what Prop. 57 is not: It’s not a get-out-of-jail free card, as some opponents would claim . ... Prop. 57 has strong opponents. As (Gov. Jerry) Brown said, crime “is a very, very emotional issue.” But policies advertised as “tough on crime” have only resulted in a state prison system that’s bursting at the seams. It’s time for sensible reform: Yes on 57.”

Proposition 57 is designed to make thousands of state prison inmates eligible for release years earlier than the term set by the sentencing judge. The rights of victims that were guaranteed over the past 40 years in a raft of public safety initiatives are cast aside in Prop. 57 in order to give prison bureaucrats the power to release violent and nonviolent inmates without listening to the voices of victims, victim’s families, prosecutors, law enforcement and sentencing judges as to how long the felon should serve. Simply stated, Prop. 57 will endanger public safety, not enhance it. Prop. 57 overturns public safety initiatives such as the Victims’ Bill of Rights (Prop. 8, 1982), Three Strikes Sentencing Law (1994), the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act (Prop. 21, 1998) and the Victims’ Bill of Rights known as Marsy’s Law (Prop. 9, 2008).

I was a prosecutor when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law in 1977 ending the indeterminate sentencing system, in which the length of time a prisoner served depended on what a prison administrative process decided was long enough. Victims, prosecutors and law enforcement officers had no idea when the criminal would be released. The system operated in the dark behind the walls of the state prisons.

The new determinate sentence law ended the secrecy, and after hearing from victims in open court, judges determined the length of sentence. Prop. 57 returns to the old system and allows sentence reductions without requiring notice to or input from victims, prosecutors or judges. There are no guidelines for state prison administrators deciding when to give a prisoner early release. The stated goal of Prop. 57 is to create a sustainable method for reducing our state prison population. There is no mention of justice, of public safety or of victims’ rights.

Prop. 57 proponents say that it only applies to prisoners who committed nonviolent crimes. This is simply false.

There is an eight-page list of violent crimes to which Prop. 57 allows early release. It includes felonies such as rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, domestic violence, arson, human trafficking, threats, vehicular manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, and residential burglary. Anyone can see that these are violent offenses.

The reality is that violent offenders will be eligible for early release, and felons convicted of violent crimes will unjustly reap the benefit of this misguided proposition.

Voters should ensure truth in sentencing continues and allow judges to determine sentences, not prison bureaucrats. Vote “no” on Prop. 57.

Stephen M. Wagstaffe is the San Mateo County district attorney and president of the California District Attorneys Association.