LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – As voters prepare to decide on a slate of statewide ballot measures, local and regional law enforcement leaders have come out with a strong warning against Proposition 57, which they say will endanger the safety of the communities and citizens they serve.
They're also concerned that it will undermine the authority of local elected judges and erode four decades' worth of advances in victims' rights in California.
Gov. Jerry Brown has developed Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, and also is campaigning vigorously for its passage.
The governor says Proposition 57 “focuses law enforcement on serious violent crime, stops wasting costly prison space on non-violent people who can be rehabilitated, and directs savings to programs with a proven track record of stopping the cycle of crime.”
It also will revise the disposition of juvenile offenders, taking the decision on whether or not to prosecute juveniles as adults from prosecutors to judges; allow offenders of the “nonviolent” crimes it lists to pursue parole after completing the full term for their primary offense, and eliminating sentencing enhancements for prior or other offenses; and will give the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation the ability to revise good time credit regulations.
Proponents say the state's prison population has exploded by 500 percent over the last several decades while few inmates were rehabilitated, leading to most of them reoffending after release, and that the proposition “focuses on evidence-based rehabilitation and allows a juvenile court judge to decide whether or not a minor should be prosecuted as an adult.”
But whether Proposition 57 actually will deliver on its promises is a matter of serious disagreement amongst law enforcement leaders.
Critics say the proposition – which if passed would become a constitutional amendment – is seriously flawed, deceptively named and has anything but the safety of the public in mind, lowering the penalties for numerous crimes from arson to rape, and even offering reduced penalties for setting explosives and soliciting for murder.
One of the proposition’s harshest nearby critics is David Eyster, Mendocino County's district attorney, who for months has warned of Proposition 57's problems.
Eyster, who has been working in the criminal justice system for more than 30 years, called Proposition 57 “probably the most dangerous change I've seen in my career as an attorney.”
He said it's badly drafted, which the governor and the people who wrote it acknowledged but promised to fix after its passage. Such promises have been hollow in the past, said Eyster, calling it a “check's in the mail” approach to addressing serious problems.
Eyster said it's being sold to the public as applying only to “nonviolent newbies.” However, Eyster pointed out, “The reality is, those people are not generally in the state prison system anymore,” which is the result of realignment and Proposition 47.
The numerous concerns about how Proposition 57 is being sold and what it will do if it passes led last week to the Lake County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association voting to release a statement urging community members to vote against it, according to Lakeport Police Chief Brad Rasmussen, the group's chair.
Rasmussen said the association's members represent the Lakeport and Clearlake police departments, sheriff's office, probation, District Attorney's Office, California Highway Patrol and State Parks.
“We are urging the public to be aware of the fine details of Proposition 57 and vote no on it because we don’t believe it will lead to safer communities here or anywhere else in California,” said the group's statement. “Proposition 57 would lead to the early release of dangerous offenders and reduce the incarceration time of career criminals including drug dealers and gang members.”
The statement added, “We understand the intent of Proposition 57 is to reduce prison overcrowding; however this proposition includes drastic changes to our parole system that will release thousands of dangerous felons into California communities while our state is already experiencing a spike in crime. This will only further erode public safety.”
The association also believes that victims' rights and other previous public safety initiatives would be weakened by Proposition 57, including Marsy’s Law and the Three Strikes law.
Along with the concerns of local law enforcement officials, this week the California Police Chiefs Association reiterated its “strong opposition” to Proposition 57.
In particular, the association pointed to the murder of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Steve Owen, who was shot on Oct. 5 by a parolee. Owen, the group said, was one of four California officers murdered in the line of duty this month.
“Proposition 57 includes drastic changes to our parole system that could release thousands of dangerous felons into our communities, putting our communities and officers in more danger. At a time when California is experiencing one of the most drastic crime increases in decades, our focus should be on doubling down our public safety efforts, not releasing career criminals from prison,” said California Police Chiefs Association President Ken Corney.
The association recently produced a study showing that, as a result of Proposition 47, passed by voters in 2014, violent crime in California increased 7.41 percent in 2015 compared to 2014 and property crime in California increased 7.26 percent in 2015 compared with 2014.
Nationwide, violent crime increased 3.1 percent in 2015 compared to 2014 while property crime declined, based on that study, which can be seen below.
Now, law enforcement officials are concerned that Proposition 57 will allow state prison inmates convicted of serious felony offenses to be considered for fast-tracked release after they serve the term of their primary offense, including good time credit. This time served does not include sentencing enhancements or consecutive sentences.
Lake County Sheriff Brian Martin attended a meeting of the state sheriff's association earlier this year in which Gov. Brown showed up to make his pitch for Proposition 57.
Brown's appearance prompted a vote by the association on whether to come out for or against the proposition. Martin said the group ultimately chose to remain neutral.
However, sheriffs across the state have been taking their own stands, some for, some against.
Martin is in the latter camp. “I can't support anything that allows people out of prison sooner,” Martin said.
The League of California Cities also has urged its members to approve resolutions opposing Proposition 57 because of the public safety concerns.
The Clearlake City Council did just that on Thursday night following a brief presentation by City Manager Greg Folsom, acting Police Chief Lt. Tim Celli and Rasmussen.
Rasmussen told Lake County News that the Lakeport City Council is due to consider a similar resolution of opposition to Proposition 57 at its Nov. 1 meeting.
Continuing changes to the criminal justice system
A nonpartisan analysis by the state Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that, if passed, Proposition 57 would result in as many as 30,000 inmates – about a quarter of the state prison population – being affected by the parole consideration provisions.
Neither Rasmussen nor Martin could say how many of those prisoners ultimately would be released early and return to Lake County. “I think it's impossible to tell at this point,” said Martin.
“This would further erode public safety, with more felons being released early back into the communities,” Rasmussen said.
Both men believe that Proposition 57 is Gov. Brown's attempt to further thin out the state's prison population in response to a United States Supreme Court ruling that found California's prisons to be overcrowded.
Martin said the state's prison population already has been reduced to meet the court's requirements, but must be maintained.
The local chiefs association outlined the previous actions taken to “drastically reduce” the number of state prison inmates per the federal court mandate.
Those measures began in 2011 with Assembly Bill 109 – the Criminal Justice Realignment bill – which Eyster said declassified 500 felonies and placed individuals convicted and sentenced to prison terms for many felony crimes in California in county jails rather than in state prisons.
With that shift, Martin said almost every single county jail in California experienced an increase in inmates, including the Lake County Jail.
At the same time, AB 109 was supposed to save hundreds of millions of dollars in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation budget, said Martin. “I don't think it's had that effect.”
Martin is right. Recent analysis by news and industry outlets have estimated that the state corrections budget now tops $10 billion, one of its biggest budgets ever.
In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47, which Eyster said also was deceptively titled and summarized as “The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act.” He said it did nothing to protect neighborhoods and schools, and led to a spike in crime.
Proposition 47 reduced numerous felony crimes to misdemeanors, which the local chiefs said has contributed to career criminals continuing to commit crimes in communities with reduced consequences.
It resulted in an immediate reduction in the local jail population, but since then it has steadily crept up once again, so that now the Lake County Jail is hovering just below its licensed capacity of 286 inmates, Martin said, adding that such issues are not unique to Lake County.
Rasmussen said he believes the rising county jail populations are the result of more state prison sentences being served locally as the result of realignment.
Full jails also lack the room to hold people who are booked on low-level type crimes, such as misdemeanor thefts, the kind that used to be felonies before Proposition 47, Rasmussen said.
Rasmussen is concerned that Proposition 57 would result in felons who are released committing numerous petty crimes, which would lead to crimes of a more serious nature.
Martin's concerns are along those same lines. He said there already is a local increase in the kinds of misdemeanor and property-related crimes that were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors under Proposition 47. Those crimes include vehicle thefts and burglaries, which he said directly impact quality of life.
At the same time, the governor is not offering any funds to help communities deal with the crime-related issues they might face, Rasmussen said.
The list of offenses
Proposition 57 claims to address those convicted of felony offenses that are serious but considered “nonviolent” in nature. Rasmussen said that language of serious versus nonviolent is misleading, as many of the listed crimes are, in fact, violent in nature. He also pointed out that the term “nonviolent felony offense” is not defined either in the proposition or in California law.
Eyster, who said the individuals who crafted the proposition were “hypertechnical” in their definition of nonviolent, also raised concerns about the list of offenses. “If you read the list, it'll blow your mind,” he said.
Considered nonviolent under Proposition 57 are crimes such as planting a bomb at a church, resisting a police officer and causing the officer injury, going after after someone with a knife and taking a prison guard hostage, he said.
The California Police Chiefs Association also raised issue with other serious crimes, pointing out that felons convicted of rape of an unconscious person, rape by a controlled substance and assault with a deadly weapon would all be considered for early release under Proposition 57.
“California has been a leader in championing policies to assist victims of sexual assault, yet Prop 57 treats sexual assault assailants as nonviolent offenders. The initiative is completely backwards,” said Chief Jennifer Tejada, chair of the Law and Legislation Committee for the California Police Chiefs Association.
Other crimes considered by Proposition 57 to be nonviolent include:
– participation in a criminal street gang and various felonies committed for gang purposes;
– battery with infliction of serious bodily injury;
– throwing acid or flammable substances;
– assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer;
– discharging a firearm at an occupied dwelling;
– arson of a structure or forest land;
– grand theft of a firearm;
– taking a hostage;
– soliciting another to commit murder;
– corporal punishment or injury on a child resulting in a traumatic condition;
– domestic violence;
– and false imprisonment of an elder or dependent adult by violence, menace, fraud or deceit.
A larger, more comprehensive list, is included at the end of the article.
“Persons serving prison time for these types of crimes are the ones who will benefit from this proposition if it passes,” the state chiefs association said.
Proposition 57 is being promoted as a way of taking power from prosecutors, but Eyster pointed out that it's not the prosecutors who have the power to pass sentence. “The judge is the one who has the final say,” he said.
The proposition would in fact undermine the authority of the justice system, said Eyster, by allowing prison bureaucrats to override sentences imposed by local judges.
“Everyone who goes to prison will be treated like a first-time, one-crime felon,” Eyster said.
He gave an example from his county that he said will resonate for Lake County as well, pointing to the case of serial arsonist Steven Hensley of Willits.
In December 2011 Hensley pleaded guilty to 19 separate counts of arson for fires he set around the Willits area in July and August of that year, and was sentenced to a mandatory 20 years in state prison the following month.
Should Proposition 57 be passed, Eyster said that Hensley will get out of prison within hours.
Then there is the matter of victims' rights. “Proposition 57 is going to override probably 40 years of the development of victims rights in this state,” said Eyster.
By making Proposition 57 a constitutional amendment, it would therefore override state statutes established by law to protect victims, which Eyster said shows how carefully it's been thought out.
Currently, state law has established that victims have a right to be heard, and must be included at sentencings and parole hearings. However, Eyster said the parole process envisioned by Proposition 57 would allow for no hearings, and instead decisions would be made by bureaucrats in backrooms.
The result, he said, will be that victims will once again be denied a voice in the process. “It will be a paper check with no humanity added in.”
And far from addressing repeat offenders, Eyster said recidivist enhancements will be stripped out. That, he said, “will increase revolving door justice and put it on steroids.”
When released, offenders will be put on state parole, which Eyster said already has been stripped back to a bare bones operation that is barely keeping up with its current caseload.
“And we're about to drop on them about one-quarter of the state prison population without adding any more money or any more staffing. What could possibly go wrong?” Eyster asked.
He said he asked the state parole manager what is being done to prepare that agency for Proposition 57's passage. The answer: Nothing. Rather, the expectation is they will be reactive and overwhelmed.
With polls showing that Proposition 57 has a good chance of passing on Nov. 8, Eyster said all law enforcement leaders can do is cross their fingers and hope that voters educate themselves about what Proposition 57 will really do and how it will be applied, versus what it promises.
The county's chiefs association asked community members to take the concerns of law enforcement and prosecutorial professionals both locally and from around the state into account when voting on Proposition 57.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Prop 57 - Nonviolent Crimes by LakeCoNews on Scribd