Senator Milton Marks, Chair
1995-96 Regular Session
SB 470 (Leonard)
As introduced
Hearing date: April 4, 1995
Penal Code
SAH:js
PRISONERS -
GENERAL WORK REQUIREMENT/EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT
FOR PAROLE/PROHIBITION ON CONJUGAL VISITS/LIMIT ON
OTHER ACTIVITIES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1260 - Chapter 555, Stats. of 1994
SB 22X - Chapter 16, 1st. Ext.
Session Stats. of 1994
Support: Unknown
Opposition: Friends Committee on Legislation; ACLU;
Concerned Citizens for Prisoners;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:
individual letters from inmate families
KEY ISSUESHOULD THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF STATE PRISONERS BE LIMITED/SPECIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
REMOVE THE EXISTING AUTHORITY IN STATUTE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO SELL OR SUPPLY TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO MINORS AGE 16 YEARS OR OLDER?
TO PROHIBIT INMATES FROM POSSESSING OR USING TOBACCO PRODUCTS; USING WEIGHTS OR WEIGHT LIFTING OR TRAINING EQUIPMENT; PARTICIPATING IN ANY CONTACT SPORTS; VIEWING ANY TELEVISION PROGRAM WHICH CONTAINS VIOLENCE OR SEX; AND FROM HAVING CONJUGAL VISITS?
TO REQUIRE EACH INMATE TO WORK - UNLESS PREVENTED BY MEDICAL OR SECURITY REASONS - AS PRESCRIBED BY THE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING WORK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF PRISONS - AND AT A MINIMUM TO ASSIGN PRISONERS TO MANUALLY PRODUCE ELECTRICITY?
TO PROHIBIT PAROLE UNLESS AN INMATE HAS ACHIEVED AN 8TH GRADE EDUCATION LEVEL - UNLESS MENTALLY OR DEVELOPMENTALLY INCAPABLE OF DOING SO?
TO PROHIBIT PRISON CANTEENS FROM SELLING ANY COFFEE, CANDY, TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR OTHER COMMODITIES NOT DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO HEALTH AND WELL-BEING?
PURPOSE
Under existing law the Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. (Penal Code Section 1170 - effective July 1, 1977, when the current Determinate Sentencing Law took effect.)
Under existing law, the Director of the Department of Corrections is vested with the supervision, management and control of the State prisons and is responsible for the care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and employment of a person confined in those prisons. The Director may prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the prisons. (Penal Code Sections 5054 and 5058)
Existing law generally provides that state prisoners may, during confinement, be deprived of only those rights as are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. (Penal Code Section 2600)
Existing law specifies certain civil rights of a state prisoner, including, among others, the right to own property, correspond confidentially with any member of the State Bar, receive and read all legal materials, have personal visits, initiate civil actions (subject to a $3 fee), marry, and make a will, all subject to specified limitations. Restrictions on obscene publications or writings and matters tending to incite to violence may specifically be restricted. (Penal Code Section 2601)
1. Existing law prohibits anyone from providing tobacco or tobacco products to minors, except for the Director of Corrections who may provide such products to minors age 16 or 17 in custody if the parent or guardian consents. (Penal Code Section 308)
This bill deletes that exemption.
2. Existing law includes a specific right of prisoners to have personal visits. (Penal Code Section 2601 [d])
This bill prohibits conjugal visits.
3. Existing law states the Director of Corrections shall require every able-bodied prisoner to work as many hours as prescribed in rules and regulations. (Penal Code Section 2700)
This bill requires that every prisoner shall be required to work unless there is a medical or security reason for an exemption. This bill requires the Director of Corrections to develop work programs to make the operation and construction of prisons as self-sufficient as possible and states that at a minimum prisoners oshall be assigned to manually produce electricity.
4. Existing law specifies numerous requirements regarding the parole of prisoners. (Penal Code Section 3000) Existing law also contains a Prisoner Literacy Act which requires the Director of Corrections to implement a program to ensure that upon parole inmates are able to achieve a ninth-grade reading level; a two-year program is called for and a report back to the Legislature is required by July 30, 1996. A phased-in period for that program is set with the Director to seek funds for implementation. (Penal Code Section 2053.1 et seq.)
This bill requires as a condition of parole that an inmate achieve the equivalent of an 8th grade education - unless mentally or developmentally incapable of doing do.
5. Existing law allows the Department of Corrections to maintain canteens for the sale of toilet articles, candy, tobacco products, and other sundries. (Penal Code Section 5005)
This bill would instead prohibit prison canteen sales of coffee, candy, tobacco products, or other commodities not deemed essential to an inmateos health and well-being.
6. Existing law states the purpose of exercise in correctional facilities and that the Department of Corrections and the Department of Youth Authority should eliminate particular weight equipment. A report back to the Legislature is required. (Penal Code Section 5010)
This bill deletes that section altogether since the bill proposes to prohibit access to any weight equipment altogether.
The purpose of this bill is to provide specific statutory restrictions on a number of the privileges and rights of inmates which the Director of Corrections may or may not chose to restrict and to require as a condition of parole that prisoners achieve the equivalent of an 8th grade education.
COMMENTS
1. Authors Intent.
The author indicates that this bill owas introduced to make prison a punishment for committing a crime. It eliminates the operkso of prison that convince criminals that prison is not such a bad place to be...it requires every prisoner to work. If there are no jobs for the prisoners to perform, at the very minimum, they shall be required to manually produce electricity. This bill also prohibits prisoners from possessing or using tobacco products, having conjugal visits, participating in contact sports, using weight machines or free weights, viewing any television program that contains sex or violence, or buying any unnecessary item at the prison commissary such as coffee and candy...and also requires every prisoner to attain at least an eighth grade education before being eligible for parole.
2. Current Authority of the Director of Corrections.
During the 1994 session, a new standard was enacted as the otesto to be used by courts if there is a challenge to the odeprivationo of an inmateos rights. The new California test is the same used for years in the Federal prison system: is the deprivation related to legitimate penological interests. That test, which has only been in effect in California since January 1 of 1995, has been widely construed to give the Director of Corrections far greater authority than under the ooldo California standard, which was to only allow restricting rights and privileges "as is necessary in order to provide for the reasonable security of the institutions...and for the reasonable protection of the public."
GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS HAS ONLY HAD THE GREATER AUTHORITY TO DEPRIVE INMATES OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL TEST SINCE JANUARY 1, 1995, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ENACT FURTHER STATUTORY DIRECTION FOR PRISON MANAGEMENT AT THIS TIME? IF SO, ARE THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS BILL APPROPRIATE?
3. Conjugal Visits.
For over 20 years Penal Code Section 2601 has contained a specific mention of the right of inmates - subject to whatever test for deprivation is applicable - to have personal visits. Since the administration of then-Governor Reagan, family overnight visits have been granted as an earned privilege by the Department of Corrections. Those visits usually involve conjugal rights but they also are often times when an entire family stays overnight with a prisoner. A number of bills have been introduced in the past several sessions to limit or eliminate those overnight visits.
Last yearos budget bill (Chapter 139 , Stats. of 1994) was amended to restrict moneys in the current budget year from being expended on overnight visits for prisoners who committed several specific sex crimes. Those provisions have been stayed by a Marin County Superior Court on equal protection grounds.
In addition, the Department of Corrections is currently seeking approval of proposed emergency regulations which would prohibit overnight visits for oinmates convicted of sex-related crimes, inmates convicted of a violent offense against a family member or minor, life prisoners, long-term inmates temporarily classified to close custody, and inmates whose case factors indicate that their participation in the family visiting program would be incompatible with public safety.o The Department indicates that the proposed regulations are intended to meet the oequal protectiono arguments made in Marin County Superior Court against the budget language adopted last year.
GIVEN THE DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRISON SYSTEM, WOULD IT BE PREFERABLE TO DEFER TO THE DIRECTOR AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD RESTRICT OVERNIGHT FAMILY VISITS?
4. The Work Requirement.
As noted in the purpose section, above, the Department of Corrections is currently required by Penal Code Section 2700 to require every able-bodied prisoner to work as many hours of ofaithful laboro as shall be prescribed. As of April 1, 1995, the Department indicates the following information about inmates:
The CDC population is 127,346 prisoners; 37,160 are ineligible for work (reasons include medical, psychiatric, reception center, administrative segregation, security housing unit, etc.). Of the 90,186 oassignment eligibleo, the following assignments for programming were noted: 10,288 academic education; 11,075 vocational education; 41,317 institutional support services (including community correctional facilities); 7,002 in prison industries; 4,198 in fire camps; 300 inmate day labor; 197 joint venture; 2,124 work furlough; 90 prisoner mothers; 400 substance abuse; and 83 restitution center.
Of the total eligible, 77,074 were programming; 13,112 were temporarily unassigned and on an assignment waiting list.
THE DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY REQUIRING PROGRAMMING FOR PRISONERS. WHAT ISSUE IS THIS BILL ADDRESSING THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRED BY LAW?
WORK AND OTHER ASSIGNMENTS CAN BE STAFF INTENSIVE; WHAT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES DOES THE DIRECTOR NEED TO PROVIDE PROGRAMMING FOR THE UNASSIGNED INMATES?
IS THE MANUAL PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY AN APPROPRIATE PROGRAM FOR INMATES?
5. Other Issues Raised by this Bill.
Other issues raised by this bill are also largely matters of restrictions on the authority of the Director of Corrections to manage the prison population in increasingly crowded situations. The Department classifies prisoners by a number of factors and keeps inmates in various levels of restrictive environments as a management tool. This bill would appear to effectively limit the options available to the Director. For example, the Department has generally imposed a no smoking policy inside prison facilities throughout the system. However, inmates who choose to smoke are still allowed to do so in designated spaces out of doors.
This bill would impose restrictions on parole unless an 8th grade education level is achieved. However, the bill does not provide for increased funding for prisoner education resources. If a restriction on parole is adopted and no resources are provided for meeting the restriction, a result may be further prison crowding at a time when prison space is at a premium.
AS NOTED IN THE PURPOSE SECTION ABOVE, THE DIRECTOR IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO DESIGN PHASED-IN PROGRAMS TO ENSURE A 8TH GRADE READING LEVEL UPON PAROLE WITH A REPORT BACK DUE JULY 30, 1996.
SHOULD THE EXISTING PRISONER LITERACY ACT BE CHANGED BY THIS BILL?
6. Opposition to this Bill.
The individual letters received in opposition to this bill speak mostly in terms of efforts to keep family relationships going with prisoners who are going to return to their community at some point.
7. Historical Note Re the Purpose of Imprisonment. California adopted an indeterminate sentence law (former Penal Code Section 1168) in 1917. It divested the trial judge of power to fix the term of imprisonment for offenses punishable by imprisonment in a State prison, and gave this power to the Adult Authority (noted in California Criminal Law 2d Ed., Witkin and Epstein).
The purposes of the change in the law, and its constitutionality, were fully considered in the early leading case of In re Lee (1918) 177 C. 690, 792, 171 p. 958: "It is generally recognized by the courts and by modern penologists that the purpose of the indeterminate sentence law, like other modern laws in relation to the administration of the criminal law, is to mitigate the punishment which would otherwise be imposed upon the offender. These laws place emphasis upon the reformation of the offender. They seek to make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime. They endeavor to put before the prisoner great incentive to well-doing in order that his will to do well should be strengthened and confirmed by the habit of well-doing. Instead of trying to break the will of the offender and make him submissive, the purpose is to strengthen his will to do right and lessen his temptation to do wrong."
The Indeterminate Sentence Law was repealed and replaced by the Determinate Sentencing Law, which became operative on July 1, 1977 (SB 42 (Nejedly), Chapter 1139, Statutes of 1976). Since that time, Penal Code Section 1170 has stated that othe Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment.
Back to Weight Lifting in Prisons Menu
Back to Strength Tech Home Page