In 2008, Californians overwhelmingly supported the passing of Proposition 9 (hereinafter Marsy’s Law), approving the proposition by a 53.8% to 46.2% margin. The passing of Marsy’s law suggests that Californians currently believe in a criminal justice system that provides a voice for victims of crime and their family members. However, while Marsy’s law was held out to the public as a bill primarily concerned with victims’ rights, it also has the potential to greatly change California’s parole system.
As mentioned in a previous post, Marsy’s Law is only a year removed from its enactment and has just started to affect California victims and convicts. Until more analysis can be conducted to determine the impact of Marsy’s Law on California parole policies, Californians will have to wait to determine whether Marsy’s Law was an appropriate change to the California Constitution. However, Californians can begin to speculate as to what effects Marsy’s Law might have on the parole system in California and what reforms might be needed to make Marsy’s Law compatible with California’s current parole system.
Option 1: Eliminate Provision Requiring Longer Periods Between Parole Hearings.
Under Marsy’s Law inmates are denied a chance for release for up to 15 years at a time without "clear and convincing evidence" for a shorter period between hearings. Prior to Marsy’s Law inmates could only be denied parole for one to five years. This is a dramatic change and one that is likely to further contribute to the overcrowding of California’s prison system. This change will also cost the state considerable resources during this period of budget shortfalls. Some analysts currently predict that Marsy’s Law could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars by restricting the state's ability to release inmates early from overcrowded prisons. While proponents of Marsy’s Law originally argued that California would save money because of the reduced parole hearings, the money saved from the reduced parole hearings will undoubtedly be offset by the record number of inmates in prison.
I submit that in order to lessen the burden on the California prison crisis, citizens might consider advocating for a proposition that strikes out the portion of Marsy’s Law lengthening the periods of time between inmates’ parole hearings. Eliminating this portion of Marsy’s Law will ensure that more individuals receive the opportunity to be heard by a parole board. Also, eliminating this provision will lessen the prison population in the state.
Further, in an era where educational and vocational training while in prison are being severely cut, inmates’ only hope of getting out of prison early and rejoining society is the opportunity to stand before a parole board and plead their cases for parole. If Marsy’s Law remains part of California’s Constitution, inmates will have to wait a decade or longer in order to plead their cases to parole boards. This will disadvantage those inmates who have been reformed and can make a contribution to society. Meanwhile, striking out the provision of Marsy’s Law lengthening the period between parole hearings will not affect the provisions granting victims and victims’ families further rights.
Potential Cost: Unknown. However, reducing the amount of inmates could save the state millions of dollars over the next decade.
Option 2: Take Marsy’s Law to Court
In March 2009, less than six months after the passage of Marsy’s Law, a federal judge blocked a portion of the crime victims' rights measure. A U.S. District Court ruled that a permanent federal injunction previously agreed to by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration trumped voters' support for Proposition 9. In 2004, the Schwarzenegger administration agreed to provide, at taxpayers' expense, lawyers for ex-convicts who risk being sent back to prison for violating parole conditions. The administration also agreed that California would act quickly on parole violation allegations. The judge rejected the administration's argument that voters' approval of Marsy’s Law nullifies the administration's settlement of the class-action inmates’ rights lawsuit. The authors of Marsy’s Law wrote language into the initiative intended to overturn the lawsuit settlement. However, the federal judge concluded that it was “not enough to overturn the injunction. A change in state law standing alone is not the type of change in factual circumstance that renders continued enforcement of a consent decree inequitable.[i]"
The above situation highlights the fact that certain portions of Marsy’s Law might be subject to legal challenges or even declared unconstitutional. Critics of Marsy’s Law have stated that it violates nearly all of parolees’ due process rights and directly conflicts with the protections put in place by established constitutional law. Critics have also stated that Marsy’s Law eliminates a parolee’s guarantee of counsel except in narrow circumstances, eliminates the ability to confront certain witnesses at parole hearings, and restricts consideration of alternatives to prison. If critics are correct then one option citizens have is to attack Marsy’s Law through the legal system. Reformers can find public interest organizations and attorneys willing to file litigation challenging the victims’ rights bill.
Potential Cost: Unknown
Option 3: Launch Pledge to Repeal Marsy’s Law
Another option potential reformers of Marsy’s Law might have is campaigning for a proposition that repeals Marsy’s Law. Citizens who are opposed to last November’s passage of Prop 8 are currently taking this approach. Supporters of a proposition to repeal Prop 8 have already begun the process of taking their issue to the voters. In order to repeal Marsy’s Law supporters will first have to file ballot language with the State of California for an initiative to repeal. Next, supporters would have to begin circulating petitions to gather the 1 million signatures needed to qualify the initiative. To gain support, reformers of Marsy’s Law could use new social networking technology to build the community around the signature gathering process.
Potential Cost: Unknown
As mentioned above, Californians have yet to discover the effects of Marsy’s Law. Thus, any change to the recently passed legislation will come after the public knows its effects. However, the above are potential avenues future reformers might take.
[i] For a complete article on this issue see http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/local/me-victims23?pg=2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The passage of Marsy's Law in 2008 is indeed a disturbing transaction. While I do believe that many Californians may believe in justice and victims' rights, it doubt that most people who voted for hte act understood the full ramifications of its passage. Considering the financial situation of the state, increasing the overall amount of time prisoners spend in prison is not what our state budget needs. California cannot afford to house offenders who could be easily and safely re-introduced into society by delaying the frequency of parole hearings. It seems as though the best solution to solve the problem created by the passage of Marsy's law would be to eliminate the provision extending the period between parole hearings. This is the best solution for California as a whole and for the prisoners who are fully recovered and ready to end their sentence.
ReplyDeleteI would vote for the Proposal #1. It will save California millions of dollars and reduce the prison population if parole was offered sooner. Victims rights advocates' concern is that inmates will be released before they are ready to return to society. However, longer periods before parole hearings do not guarantee rehabilitation. Further, victims have the right to participate in parole hearings, so if they are concerned that inmate isn't rehabilitated, they can have their voice whenever the parole hearing takes place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eve. I would also vote for proposal #1 because I think it has the most reform potential. If we could highlight the money the state could save in overturning this portion of the law, I think voters would support it. Considering the state's current economic crisis, voters will likely support measures that have positive fiscal consequences. Proposal #2 seems like it would be difficult to achieve. The CA Supreme Court is weary of overturning propositions. Prop 8 is a perfect example. Proposal #3 also might be difficult. I am not familiar with Marsy's law, but there may be some portions of the law that receive high public support.
ReplyDeleteNot being familiar with many of the specific provisions of Marsy's Law, proposal #1 seems to make a lot of sense. Inmates should be released in a timely manner, consistent with appropriate sentencing guidelines, once they have been reformed to a point where they are no longer a danger to society. Leaving them in jail longer greatly increases the many negative impacts and influences inmates undergo while in the prison system. This reduces inmates' chance of success once they are released. In addition, even though the costs of conducting additional parole hearings may increase, this cost should be offset by shorter terms of incarceration.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Proposal 1 would be beneficial to the California prison crisis and economic crisis. Striking the portion of Marsy’s Law that lengthens the time period between parole hearings would ensure that more individuals have the opportunity for parole sooner, which potentially will decrease the prison population. As such, prisoners who are suitable for parole would gain their freedom at a sooner and more appropriate time, rather than prolonging the process which would be an unnecessary expense for the state.
ReplyDeleteI would go for Proposal #1 as well. I agree that the proponents' reasoning behind the law seems weak when considering California's fiscal problems. Just holding inmates for a long time for a hearing without any guarantees on rehabilitation seems odd and the cost seems higher on this side compared to that of parole hearing.
ReplyDeleteI will go with the majority on this one and say that proposal #1 makes the most sense. I think that the current budget crisis will only be exacerbated by the fact that inmates have to wait longer for parole hearings. The cost of a parole hearing cannot be more than keeping an inmate locked up for years. If it is in fact true that an inmate can wait up to 15 years for a parole hearing, that sounds fairly ludicrous to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm going out on a limb and suggesting option #2. I strongly disagree with California's proposition system. I don't even support using the proposition system to defeat prior laws enacted through it - so #3 is out for me. I think it is a good idea to challenge it generally since it is so new and we don't know the real effects yet. Then, if the courts uphold the law, we can work on option #1 and remove portions, at which point we will have a better idea of their true harms.
ReplyDelete