According to the California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (“LAO”), the key provisions of Proposition 9 included:
- Expand victims’ rights to participate in public judicial proceedings, including notification by criminal justice agencies and the right to confer with prosecutors;
- Add rights for victims to the Constitution, such as the right to speedy recovery of property to be used as evidence;
- Prioritizes restitution owed by convicts to be paid to victims prior to other debts owed; and
- Restricts the early release of inmates via the parole system, including increasing the time that must pass between attempts for parole by inmates.[2]
The LAO pointed out that the proposition would reduce the financial burdens of the prison system by reducing the number of parole hearings and the judicial burden that comes with them. However, the proposition requires that the state have sufficient resources to support these inmates for the entirety of their sentences, which may actually increase the economic burden for the state.
The initiative was sponsored by Henry Nicholas, who contributed almost $5 million to the campaign before leaving due to personal conflicts. Nicholas’ goal in supporting Proposition 9 was to reduce the ability of convicted felons to receive repeated opportunities to apply for parole. Supporters pointed out that felons often have annual parole hearings despite little chance of success, draining California’s already limited resources. By installing mandatory time periods between hearings, California could more efficiently review parole applications. Supporters further stressed that victims need to have priority to receive the restitution they deserve. Proposition 9 would guarantee that any restitution properly went to the victims of the crime before any other debts.
Opposition to Proposition 9 emphasized that the unintended effects of the initiative could further overwhelm the state, mandating prison services when prisons already suffer from a lack of resources. By delaying parole hearings, California would be guaranteeing services for prisoners that may not be necessary where parole is appropriate. Furthermore, most of the changes that Proposition 9 provides for victims were previously approved in 1980’s Proposition 8, including the notification and involvement of victims in the sentencing process. For a state looking to reduce its prison population and cut its prison budget, mandating delays in parole hearings would appear to worsen rather than improve the problem.
Proposition 9 is representative of the current problems plaguing California’s prison system. On the one hand, the principles of the initiative would seem to enact positive changes that could greatly affect the California community and victims of crimes. It prevents parole resources from being drained by unnecessary hearings and procedures that are otherwise being improperly used by convicts. It provides vital restitution to victims to allow them to recover both psychologically and economically where otherwise there may be no remedy. California’s parole system may be strengthened by replacing unnecessary parole hearings with those convicts who truly deserve the opportunity to be heard and have earned the right to leave prison early.
However, Proposition 9 may be taking an extreme step to achieve its legitimate and beneficial goals. By mandating that convicts must wait given periods of time between parole hearings, California prisons are guaranteeing that they must provide services for those periods of time. This hard-line rule further burdens the state, which is currently enduring a major economic recession that has resulted in prison overcrowding. Further compounding the problem is the impending federal requirement to reduce prison populations in California. With a strapped budget and limited resources and facilities, California prisons may be paying the price for the changes enacted through Proposition 9.
Only a year removed from its enactment, Proposition 9 has just started to affect California victims and convicts. It has yet to be proven whether the fiscal effects of the initiative have been realized. While California prisons continue to suffer from overcrowding and underfunding, it is unclear whether Proposition 9 contributed to this. Victims have begun to take advantage of their new rights under the initiative, becoming more involved in the process and receiving their just remedy. However, until more analysis can be conducted to determine the impact of Proposition 9 on California prison populations, Californians will have to wait like convicts seeking parole to determine whether Proposition 9 was an appropriate change to the California Constitution.
[1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/crimjust/2008/Prop_9_9_23_08.pdf
[2] http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_9_(2008)
No comments:
Post a Comment