This proposition is both an Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. It allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons; authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education; and provides that a juvenile court judge decides whether a juvenile will be prosecuted as adult.
— Parole, Sentencing and Court Procedures — Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing.Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute —
State of CaliforniaProp. 57 — Parole, Sentencing and Court Procedures Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute - Majority Approval Required
Share This Page
Here is some helpful information about this ballot measure from trusted sources.
The way it is now
The State of California has been making changes in sentencing and procedures for different kinds of crimes in order to prevent prison overcrowding. Before they can be eligible for parole, people with felony convictions must serve a minimum sentence for their main crimes and may serve additional time for lesser charges. Most inmates can reduce their sentences by earning credits for education, job training and good behavior. When someone is accused of a crime, court procedures are sometimes different based on whether the person is under the age of 18. Depending on the seriousness of the crime and their criminal history, youth 14 to 17 may be tried either as juveniles or as adults. In some cases, prosecutors can choose whether the case should be tried in juvenile or adult court.
What if it passes?
Make changes to the State Constitution about sentencing and court procedures for two kinds of situations. Adults convicted of non-violent felonies would be eligible for parole after serving time for their main crimes. Inmates may also have more opportunities to reduce their sentences through credits for good behavior and approved educational activities. Changes would also be made to youth court procedures. Youth accused of a crime who are 14 to 17 years old could not be tried in adult court unless it was decided by a juvenile court judge.
By reducing the adult prison population, the state could save money in the tens of millions of dollars each year. Moving youth offenders to juvenile courts would save an additional few million dollars. Counties would need to spend additional money in the short term to supervise a larger number of felons on parole. Moving youth out of adult court would likely cost counties a few million dollars each year.
People FOR say
- Prop 57 would reduce overcrowding in state prisons and save money spent on non-violent offenders.
- Prop 57 would encourage inmates to take advantage of educational and rehabilitation opportunities.
People AGAINST say
- Prop 57 would release a greater number of convicted felons onto the street.
- Prop 57 would weaken crime laws and fail to honor the original sentence ordered by a judge.
Should prison inmates convicted of certain nonviolent crimes be considered for early parole and should judges decide when juveniles should be prosecuted as adults?
Prison sentences in California are set as either a fixed amount of time or an “indeterminate” time, which is a minimum but not a specific maximum time, such as 25-years-to-life. The majority of prisoners are serving a fixed sentence. Some of those are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentence. Those serving indeterminate sentences are eligible for a parole hearing once they have served the minimum sentence. Limited credits may be awarded for good behavior such as training or education, in determining parole.
In 2011, a federal court ordered California to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity or face mandatory release of prisoners.
Youths under 18 years of age accused of committing crimes are generally tried in juvenile court where judges determine placement and treatment. Youths between 14 and 18 who are accused of crimes such as murder or specific sex offenses may be tried in adult court at the discretion of a prosecutor.
- Prop. 57 would amend the State Constitution to allow parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies who have served their minimum sentences and passed screening for public security.
- Prop. 57 would change state law to require that youths have a hearing in juvenile court to determine whether they should be transferred to adult court, eliminating the ability of prosecutors to make that determination.
A decline in the prison population due to this measure could reduce the state’s $10 billion corrections budget by tens of millions of dollars(offset by costs to conduct more parole hearings). County costs could increase due to an increase in the probation population, which is supervised by county probation officers.
New requirements for youth hearings could reduce state court costs and increase costs in state juvenile facilities. This would result in a net savings of a few million dollars annually. Net county costs would likely increase a few million dollars annually as counties pay for a portion of housing costs in state juvenile facilities as well as probation supervision.
- Prop 57 focuses resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, while rehabilitating inmates and saving tens of millions of dollars.
- Without a commonsense, long-term solution, we will continue to waste billions of dollars and risk a court-ordered release of dangerous prisoners.
- Weakening of California’s anti-crime laws has gone too far. California’s Constitution should not be amended to give more rights to criminals.
- Prop 57 is a poorly drafted measure classifying crimes such as rape by intoxication and assault with a deadly weapon as ‘non-violent’ and eligible for early parole.
- Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies, upon completion of prison term for their primary offense as defined.
- Authorizes Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements.
- Requires Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions and certify they enhance public safety.
- Provides juvenile court judges shall make determination, upon prosecutor motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for specified offenses.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
- Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to reductions in the prison population. Savings would depend on how certain provisions are implemented.
- Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) operates the state prison system. CDCR is responsible for housing adults who have been convicted of felonies identified in state law as serious or violent, as well as certain sex offenses. Examples of violent felonies include murder, robbery, and rape. Examples of serious felonies include certain forms of assault, such as assault with the intent to commit robbery. The department is also responsible for housing individuals convicted of other felonies (such as grand theft) in cases where those individuals have been previously convicted of serious, violent, or certain sex offenses. As of June 2016, there were about 128,000 individuals in state prison. Below, we discuss the sentencing of adult offenders and the use of parole consideration hearings and sentencing credits.
Adult Sentencing. Individuals are placed in prison under an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence. Under indeterminate sentencing, individuals are sentenced to prison for a term that includes a minimum but no specific maximum, such as 25-years-to-life. Under determinate sentencing, individuals receive fixed prison terms with a specified release date. Most people in state prison have received a determinate sentence.
Individuals in prison have been convicted of a main or primary offense. They often serve additional time due to other, lesser crimes for which they are convicted at the same time. In addition, state law includes various sentencing enhancements that can increase the amount of time individuals serve. For example, those previously convicted of a serious or violent offense generally must serve twice the term for any new felony offense.
Parole Consideration Hearings. After an individual serves the minimum number of years required for an indeterminate sentence, the state Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) conducts a parole consideration hearing to determine whether the individual is ready to be released from prison. For example, BPH would conduct such a hearing for an individual sentenced to 25-years-to-life after the individual served 25 years in prison. If BPH decides not to release the individual from prison, the board would conduct a subsequent hearing in the future. Individuals who receive a determinate sentence do not need a parole consideration hearing to be released from prison at the end of their sentence. However, some of these individuals currently are eligible for parole consideration hearings before they have served their entire sentence. For example, certain individuals who have not been convicted of violent felonies are currently eligible for parole consideration after they have served half of their prison sentence. This was one of several measures put in place by a federal court to reduce the state’s prison population.
Sentencing Credits. State law currently allows CDCR to award credits under certain conditions to prison inmates that reduce the time they must serve in prison. The credits are provided for good behavior or for participating in work, training, or education programs. Over two-thirds of inmates are eligible to receive credits. State law limits the amount that inmate sentences can be reduced through credits. For example, more than half of inmates eligible for credits can only reduce their sentences by 15 percent because they have a conviction for a violent offense.
Youths accused of committing crimes when they were under 18 years of age are generally tried in juvenile court. However, under certain circumstances, they can be tried in adult court. Below, we discuss the process for determining whether a youth is tried in juvenile court versus adult court.
Youths in Juvenile Court. Juvenile court proceedings are different than adult court proceedings. For example, juvenile court judges do not sentence a youth to a set term in prison or jail. Instead, the judge determines the appropriate placement and rehabilitative treatment (such as drug treatment) for the youth, based on factors such as the youth’s offense and criminal history. About 44,000 youths were tried in juvenile court in 2015.
Counties are generally responsible for the youths placed by juvenile courts. Some of these youths are placed in county juvenile facilities. However, if the judge finds that the youth committed certain significant crimes listed in statute (such as murder, robbery, and certain sex offenses), the judge can place the youth in a state juvenile facility. State law requires that counties generally pay a portion of the cost of housing youths in these state facilities. Youths who are released from a state juvenile facility are generally supervised in the community by county probation officers.
Youths in Adult Court. In certain circumstances, youths accused of committing crimes when they were age 14 or older can be tried in adult court and receive adult sentences. (Individuals accused of committing crimes before they were age 14 must have their cases heard in juvenile court.) Such cases can be sent to adult court in one of the three following ways:
Automatically Based on Seriousness of Crime. If a youth is accused of committing murder or specific sex offenses with certain special circumstances that make the crime more serious (such as also being accused of torturing the victim), he or she must be tried in adult court.
At the Discretion of Prosecutor Based on Crime and Criminal History. If a youth has a significant criminal history and/or is accused of certain crimes listed in statute (such as murder), a prosecutor can file charges directly in adult court. Prosecutors have this ability in more cases for youths who were age 16 or 17 at the time the crime was committed than for those who were age 14 or 15.
At the Discretion of Judge Based on Hearing. A prosecutor can request a hearing in which a juvenile court judge decides whether a youth should be transferred to adult court. For youths who were age 14 or 15 when the crime was committed, the crime must be one of certain significant crimes listed in statute (such as murder, robbery, or certain sex offenses). For youths who were age 16 or 17 when the crime was committed, the prosecutor can seek this hearing for any crime, but typically will only do so for more serious crimes or for youths with a significant criminal history.
Relatively few youths are sent to adult court each year. For example, less than 600 youths were sent to adult court in 2015. Less than 100 youths were sent to adult court at the discretion of a judge based on a hearing. The remainder were sent to adult court automatically based on the seriousness of their crime or at the discretion of a prosecutor based on their crime and/or criminal history.
Youths convicted in adult court when they are under 18 years of age are typically held in a state juvenile facility for the first portion of their sentences. When these youths turn age 18, they are generally transferred to state prison. However, if their sentences are short enough that they are able to complete their terms before turning age 21, they serve their entire sentences in a state juvenile facility. The state pays the entire cost of housing youths in a state juvenile facility who were convicted in adult court. After completing their sentences, these youths are generally supervised in the community by state parole agents.
Impartial analysis / Proposal
This measure makes changes to the State Constitution to increase the number of inmates eligible for parole consideration and authorizes CDCR to award sentencing credits to inmates. The measure also makes changes to state law to require that youths have a hearing in juvenile court before they can be transferred to adult court. We describe these provisions in greater detail below.
Parole Consideration for Nonviolent Offenders. The measure changes the State Constitution to make individuals who are convicted of “nonviolent felony” offenses eligible for parole consideration after serving the full prison term for their primary offense. As a result, BPH would decide whether to release these individuals before they have served any additional time related to other crimes or sentencing enhancements.
The measure requires CDCR to adopt regulations to implement these changes. Although the measure and current law do not specify which felony crimes are defined as nonviolent, this analysis assumes a nonviolent felony offense would include any felony offense that is not specifically defined in statute as violent. As of September 2015, there were about 30,000 individuals in state prison who would be affected by the parole consideration provisions of the measure. In addition, about 7,500 of the individuals admitted to state prison each year would be eligible for parole consideration under the measure. Individuals who would be affected by the above changes currently serve about two years in prison before being considered for parole and/or released. Under the measure, we estimate that these individuals would serve around one and one-half years in prison before being considered for parole and/or released.
Authority to Award Credits. The measure also changes the State Constitution to give CDCR the authority to award credits to inmates for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. The department could award increased credits to those currently eligible for them and credits to those currently ineligible. As a result, CDCR could increase the amount of credits inmates can earn, which would reduce the amount of time served in prison.
Juvenile Transfer Hearings. The measure changes state law to require that, before youths can be transferred to adult court, they must have a hearing in juvenile court to determine whether they should be transferred. As a result, the only way a youth could be tried in adult court is if the juvenile court judge in the hearing decides to transfer the youth to adult court. Youths accused of committing certain severe crimes would no longer automatically be tried in adult court and no youth could be tried in adult court based only on the decision of a prosecutor. In addition, the measure specifies that prosecutors can only seek transfer hearings for youths accused of (1) committing certain significant crimes listed in state law (such as murder, robbery, and certain sex offenses) when they were age 14 or 15 or (2) committing a felony when they were 16 or 17. As a result of these provisions, there would be fewer youths tried in adult court.
This measure would have various fiscal effects on the state and local governments. However, the magnitude of these effects would depend on how certain provisions in the measure are interpreted and implemented. As such, our estimates below are subject to significant uncertainty.
Parole Consideration for Nonviolent Offenders
Net State Savings. To the extent nonviolent offenders serve shorter prison terms due to the parole consideration provisions of the measure, it would reduce state costs as the size of the prison population would decline. The level of savings would depend heavily on the number of individuals BPH chose to release. Based on recent BPH experience with parole consideration for certain nonviolent offenders, we estimate that the ongoing fiscal impact of this provision would likely be state savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually. These savings would be offset somewhat by additional costs for BPH to conduct more parole considerations.
The measure would also result in temporary fiscal effects in the near term due to (1) additional savings from the release of offenders currently in prison who would be eligible for parole consideration and (2) an acceleration of parole costs to supervise those individuals who are released from prison earlier than otherwise.
Acceleration of County Costs. Because the measure would result in the early release of some individuals who are supervised by county probation officers following their release from prison, the measure would likely increase the size of the probation population in the near term. In the absence of the measure, counties would have eventually incurred these probation costs in the future.
Sentencing Credits for Prison Inmates
Net State Savings. To the extent CDCR awards individuals with additional credits, the measure would reduce state costs as a result of a lower prison population. Any level of savings is highly uncertain, as it would depend on how much average sentence lengths were reduced by CDCR. If the department granted enough credits to reduce the average time inmates serve by a few weeks, the measure could eventually result in state savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually. However, the savings could be significantly higher or lower if the department made different decisions. Because the measure could result in the early release of some individuals who are supervised by state parole agents following release, the measure could temporarily increase the size of the parole population. The state, however, would eventually have incurred these parole costs even in the absence of the measure.
Acceleration of County Costs. Because the measure could result in the early release of some individuals who are supervised by county probation officers following their release from prison, the measure could increase the size of the probation population in the near term. In the absence of the measure, counties would have eventually incurred these probation costs in the future.
Prosecution of Youth in Adult Court
Net State Savings. If the measure's transfer hearing requirements result in fewer youths being tried and convicted in adult court, the measure would have a number of fiscal effects on the state. First, it would reduce state prison and parole costs as those youths would no longer spend any time in prison or be supervised by state parole agents following their release. In addition, because juvenile court proceedings are generally shorter than adult court proceedings, the measure would reduce state court costs. These savings would be partially offset by increased state juvenile justice costs as youths affected by the measure would generally spend a greater amount of time in state juvenile facilities. (As noted earlier, a portion of the cost of housing these youths in state juvenile facilities would be paid for by counties.) In total, we estimate that the net savings to the state from the above effects could be a few million dollars annually.
County Costs. If fewer youths are tried and convicted as adults, the measure would also have a number of fiscal effects on counties. First, as discussed above, counties would be responsible for paying a portion of the costs of housing these youths in state juvenile facilities. In addition, county probation departments would be responsible for supervising these youths following their release. Since juvenile court proceedings are generally shorter than adult court proceedings, the above county costs would be partially offset by some savings. For example, county agencies involved in court proceedings for these youths—such as district attorneys, public defenders, and county probation—would experience a reduction in workload. In total, we estimate that the net costs to counties due to the above effects would likely be a few million dollars annually.
Other Fiscal Effects
The measure could also affect crime rates in varying ways. On the one hand, if the measure results in offenders spending less time in prison and more time in the community, it could result in these offenders committing additional crimes or crimes sooner than they otherwise would have. On the other hand, the measure could lead to more offenders participating in educational and rehabilitative programs that reduce the likelihood of them committing crimes in the future. The net effect of the above factors is unknown.
YES vote means
Certain state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felony offenses would be considered for release earlier than otherwise. The state prison system could award additional sentencing credits to inmates for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Youths must have a hearing in juvenile court before they could be transferred to adult court.
NO vote means
There would be no change to the inmate release process. The state’s prison system could not award additional sentencing credits to inmates. Certain youths could continue to be tried in adult court without a hearing in juvenile court.
VOTE YES on PROPOSITION 57
California public safety leaders and victims of crime support Proposition 57—the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016—because 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, longterm 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.”
Prop. 57 is long overdue.
Prop. 57 focuses our system on evidence-based rehabilitation for juveniles and adults because it is better for public safety than our current system.
Prop. 57 saves tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Prop. 57 keeps the most dangerous criminals behind bars.
VOTE YES on Prop. 57
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of California
MARK BONINI, President
Chief Probation Officers of California
DIONNE WILSON, widow of police officer killed in the line of duty
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
• Discharging a firearm on school grounds
• Lewd acts against a child 14 or 15
• False imprisonment of an elder through violence. *partial list
Here are five more reasons to VOTE NO on 57:
- 57 authorizes state government bureaucrats to reduce many sentences for “good behavior,” even for inmates convicted of murder, rape, child molestation and human trafficking.
- 57 permits the worst career criminals to be treated the same as first-time offenders, discounting strong sentences imposed by a judge.
- “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
- 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.
- 57 will likely result in higher crime rates as at least 16,000 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.
Make no mistake. If Prop. 57 passes, every home, every neighborhood, every school will be less safe than it is today.
Ask yourself these questions:
Should a criminal who RAPES AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON be allowed early release from prison? How about a 50-year old child molester who preys on a child?
Should criminals convicted of HUMAN TRAFFICKING involving sex acts with a child, be allowed back on the streets before serving their full sentence?
Should a criminal who attempts to EXPLODE A BOMB at a hospital, school or place of worship, be allowed to leave prison early?
If you answered NO to these questions, then join District Attorneys, Courtroom Prosecutors, Police, Sheriffs, Crime Victims, Superior Court Judges and community leaders in voting NO on 57.
Violent crime was up 10% last year in California. Don’t allow more violent and dangerous criminals to be released early. VOTE NO on 57.
MARTIN HALLORAN, President
San Francisco Police Officers Association
GEORGE HOFSTETTER, President
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
STEPHEN WAGSTAFFE, President
California District Attorneys Association
Replies to Arguments FOR
The authors of Prop. 57 are not telling you the truth. IT APPLIES TO VIOLENT CRIMINALS, will increase crime and make you less safe. Vote NO.
FACT: Prop. 57 authorizes EARLY PAROLE for a RAPIST who drugs and rapes a victim, because its authors call him non-violent.
FACT: Prop. 57 AMENDS CALIFORNIA’S CONSTITUTION to give these new early parole rights to criminals who are convicted of many violent and horrible crimes, including:
RAPE of an unconscious victim; HUMAN SEX TRAFFICKING; ASSAULT with a deadly weapon; LEWD ACTS against a 14-year-old; HOSTAGE TAKING; HATE CRIMES causing injury.
- Thousands of dangerous criminals have already been released early. We are paying the price. The violent crime rate was up 10% last year and Rape up 37%.
- Prop. 57 would authorize the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of thousands of dangerous criminals.
- Those previously convicted of MURDER, RAPE and CHILD MOLESTATION would be eligible for early parole.
- Releasing thousands of dangerous criminals will not save money. In addition to the human costs of increased crime, counties and cities will be forced to hire more police, sheriff deputies, victim counselors and expand courts.
- Prop. 57 overturns important provisions of the Crime Victims Bill of Rights, our 3-Strikes Law and Marsy’s Law—strong measures enacted by voters.
The weakening of California’s anti-crime laws has gone too far. Don’t amend California’s Constitution to give even more rights to criminals. Crime Victims, Police, Sheriffs, Judges and Prosecutors urge a NO vote on 57.
HONORABLE JAMES ARDAIZ, Presiding Judge
5th District Court of Appeal (Ret.)
SANDRA HUTCHENS, Sheriff Orange County
COLLENE THOMPSON CAMPBELL, Founder
Memory of Victims Everywhere
Replies to Arguments AGAINST
YES on Proposition 57
Opponents of Prop. 57 are wrong.
Prop. 57 saves tens of millions of taxpayer dollars by reducing wasteful prison spending, breaks the cycle of crime by rehabilitating deserving juvenile and adult inmates, and keeps dangerous criminals behind bars.
Don’t be misled by false attacks. Prop. 57:
- Does NOT automatically release anyone from prison.
- Does NOT authorize parole for violent offenders. The California Supreme Court clearly stated that parole eligibility under Prop. 57 applies, “only to prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.” (Brown v. Superior Court, June 6, 2016). Violent criminals as defined in Penal Code 667.5(c) are excluded from parole.
- Does NOT and will not change the federal court order that excludes sex offenders, as defined in Penal Code 290, from parole.
- Does NOT diminish victims’ rights.
- Does NOT prevent judges from issuing tough sentences.
- WILL focus resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars.
- WILL save tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
- WILL help fix a broken system where inmates leave prison without rehabilitation, re-offend and cycle back into the system.
- WILL be implemented through Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regulations developed with public and victim input and certified as protecting public safety.
San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis—a Prop. 57 supporter—knows it is imperative to provide inmates with tools to stop the revolving door to prison. (Daily Journal, July 14, 2016).
And that makes our communities safer.
Join law enforcement officials, victims of crime and religious leaders: vote YES on Prop. 57.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of California
MARK BONINI, President
Chief Probation Officers of California
DIONNE WILSON, widow of police officer killed in the line of duty
Yes on Prop. 57
No on Prop. 57
Below are the top 10 contributors that gave money to committees supporting or opposing the ballot measures.