Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot�EWPR CITY OF T - z NEWPORT BEACH <,FoR�P City Council Staff Report October 25, 2016 Agenda Item No. 4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Dave Kiff, City Manager - 949-644-3001, dkiff@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Dave Kiff, City Manager TITLE: Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot ABSTRACT: Mayor Dixon and Mayor pro Tem Muldoon have asked that the City take a formal position to oppose Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot. RECOMMENDATION - a) Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; b) Waive Council Policy A-6; and c) Adopt Resolution 2016-117, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Opposing California Proposition 57 (The California Parole for Non -Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Proposition 57 (the "California Parole for Non -Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative") was placed on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot via the submission of qualified signatures. Governor Jerry Brown (D -California) is a major proponent of the measure. If adopted, it would amend both the California Constitution and California statutes. 4-1 Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot October 25, 2016 Page 2 Very generally, the measure would give judges more leeway in sentencing for several crimes that once had more determinant or fixed sentences. Governor Brown, an early proponent of determinant sentencing, has changed his perspective on their effectiveness, and believes that determinant sentences may be a deterrent to rehabilitation. He also supports this measure to reduce prison populations, similar to Proposition 47's passage in 2014. Proposition 57 also allows judges (not prosecutors) to determine if juveniles should be charged as adults or juveniles. The following additional background is from Ballotpedia.org as well as the Secretary of State's ballot pamphlet: In 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons were overcrowded and violated the Eighth Amendment. The state was ordered to reduce its prison population. Prison numbers dropped after voters approved Proposition 47 in 2014, which reduced certain non-violent felonies to misdemeanors and gave more inmates a higher chance for parole consideration. Proposition 57 was also designed to lower prison population numbers. Changes to state law Proposition 57 would increase parole chances for felons convicted of non-violent crimes and give them more opportunities to earn credits for good behavior. It would also allow judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. How would the inmate releases work? Those convicted of non-violent felony crimes who have served full sentences for their primary offense and passed screening for public security would be eligible for parole. That would make about 7,000 inmates immediately eligible, according to The Associated Press. Additionally, Proposition 57 would allow inmates to earn credits for good behavior, and educational or rehabilitative achievements. Inmates use credits to reduce time spent in prison. How many inmates could be affected by the initiative? As of the beginning of 2016, there were about 25,000 nonviolent state felons that could seek early release and parole under Proposition 57. How would juvenile trials change? Instead of prosecutors, judges would decide whether to try juveniles as young as 14 years old in adult court. Prosecutors were given the right to directly file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court when voters approved Proposition 21 in 2000. 4-2 Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot October 25, 2016 Page 3 What Supporters Say: Supporters of the measure include Governor Brown, Lt. Governor Newsom, former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the California Democratic Party, and the California Libertarian Party, among others. The written argument in support includes the below: "Prop 57 focuses resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates and saving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Over the last several decades, California's prison population exploded by 500% and prison spending ballooned to more than $10 billion every year. Meanwhile, too few inmates were rehabilitated and most re -offended after release. Overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions led the U.S. Supreme Court to order the state to reduce its prison population. Now, without a common sense, long-term solution, we will continue to waste billions and risk a court-ordered release of dangerous prisoners. This is an unacceptable outcome that puts Californians in danger - and this is why we need Prop 57. Prop 57 is straightforward - here's what it does: Saves taxpayer dollars by reducing wasteful spending on prisons. Keeps the most dangerous offenders locked up. Allows parole consideration for people with non-violent convictions who complete the full prison term for their primary offense. Authorizes a system of credits that can be earned for rehabilitation, good behavior and education milestones or taken away for bad behavior. Requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to certify that these policies are consistent with protecting and enhancing public safety. Requires judges instead of prosecutors to decide whether minors should be prosecuted as adults, emphasizing rehabilitation for minors in the juvenile system. We know what works. Evidence shows that the more inmates are rehabilitated, the less likely they are to re -offend. Further evidence shows that minors who remain under juvenile court supervision are less likely to commit new crimes. Prop 57 focuses on evidence -based rehabilitation and allows a juvenile court judge to decide whether or not a minor should be prosecuted as an adult. No one is automatically released, or entitled to release from prison, under Prop 57. To be granted parole, all inmates, current and future, must demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and do not pose a danger to the public. The Board of Parole Hearings - made up mostly of law enforcement officials - determines who is eligible for release. Any individuals approved for release will be subject to mandatory supervision by law enforcement. And as the California Supreme Court clearly stated: parole eligibility in Prop 57 applies "only to prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies." 4-3 Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot October 25, 2016 Page 4 What Opponents Say: Opponents of Proposition 57 include the California Republican Party, Orange County DA Tony Rackauckas, and Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens. The ballot argument in opposition includes: Proposition 57 will allow criminals convicted of rape, lewd acts against a child, gang gun crimes and human trafficking to be released early from prison. That's why Proposition 57 is opposed by California Law Enforcement - District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Police, Courtroom Prosecutors, Crime Victims and local community leaders. Here are the facts: The authors of Proposition 57 claim it only applies to "non-violent" crimes, but their poorly drafted measure deems the following crimes "non-violent" and makes the perpetrators eligible for early parole and release into local communities: • Rape by intoxication • Rape of an unconscious person • Human Trafficking involving sex act with minors • Drive-by shooting • Assault with a deadly weapon • Hostage taking • Attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school • Domestic violence involving trauma • Supplying a firearm to a gang member • Hate crime causing physical injury • Failing to register as a sex offender • Arson • Discharging a firearm on school grounds • Lewd acts against a child 14 or 15 • False imprisonment of an elder through violence Here are five more reasons to vote no on 57: 1. 57 authorizes state government bureaucrats to reduce many sentences for "good behavior," even for inmates convicted of murder, rape, child molestation and human trafficking. 2. 57 permits the worst career criminals to be treated the same as first-time offenders, discounting strong sentences imposed by a judge. Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 57 on the November 8, 2016 General Election Ballot October 25, 2016 Page 5 3. 57 effectively overturns key provisions of Marsy's Law, '3 -Strikes and You're Out,' Victims' Bill of Rights, Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act - measures enacted by voters that have protected victims and made communities safer," Susan Fisher, Former Chairwoman State Parole Board. 4. 57 forces victims trying to put their lives back together to re -live the crimes committed against them over and over again, with every new parole hearing. 5. 57 will likely result in higher crime rates as at least 15,000 dangerous criminals, including those previously convicted of murder and rape, would be eligible for early release. Finally, Prop. 57 places all these new privileges and rights for convicted criminals into the California Constitution, where they cannot be changed by the legislature." In suggesting that the City Council adopt a position of opposition to Proposition 57, Mayor Dixon and Mayor pro Tem Muldoon have argued that the impacts of Proposition 47 appear to have been adversely consequential to the Newport Beach community, and that additional releases will further those impacts. Additionally, they have expressed concerns that certain crimes, such as assault or rape following intoxication, should not be eligible for early release. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution 4-5 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 57 (THE CALIFORNIA PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS AND JUVENILE COURT TRIAL REQUIREMENTS INITIATIVE) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach believes the safety of the community is paramount in developing and maintaining a community where residents, businesses, and visitors can thrive; WHEREAS, the City Council believes the State of California's (State) efforts to reduce prison overcrowding may be ill-advised when funding and programs for job training, education, recovery from substance abuse, and other rehabilitative programs are inadequate; WHEREAS, the community of Newport Beach sees too many offenses created by offenders released under Proposition 47 and previous State prison realignment programs; WHEREAS, Proposition 57 deems certain heinous crimes as "non-violent," and makes the perpetrators eligible for early parole and release into local communities; crimes that include, but are not limited to, rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, drive by shootings, hostage taking, arson, and lewd acts against a child 14 or 15; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that additional releases via Proposition 57, especially as they may relate to criminais who have committed terrible crimes, are likely to be harmful to our community and our community's quality of life. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as foilows Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach joins law enforcement officials and community leaders throughout the State in opposing Proposition 57. Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. W. Resolution No. 2016 - Page 2 of 2 Section 3: Staff recommends the City Council find the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Section 4: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 25 day of October, 2016. ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTO 1 EY'S OFFICE Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney Diane B. Dixon, Mayor 4-7