Where Los Angeles County district attorney candidates stand on Proposition 57
As part of this newspaper’s endorsement process, we invited the candidates for Los Angeles District Attorney to provide their written thoughts, only lightly edited for length, on major public policy matters.
Here we present their responses to the question: Give us your assessment of Proposition 57. How do you intend to handle cases subject to the measure?
George Gascón: Proposition 57 – the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act – was approved by California voters in 2016 and changed how nonviolent offenders are released on parole. The District Attorney’s Office evaluates the public safety impact of every inmate prosecuted in Los Angeles County who is deemed eligible for early release under the new law. The office also makes every effort to notify victims about the possible release of an inmate so their voices may be heard. You can read about our office’s track record on the goals of Prop. 57 here.
Craig Mitchell: Proposition 57 has shifted the burden of housing felons from the State to the Counties. This has resulted in counties have insufficient housing for those who need to serve custody time in a county jail. It has also resulted in the early release of thousands of criminals long before they actually served the sentence that was imposed. I would work to rewrite the provisions that have created this dilemma.
Debra Archuleta: I intend to follow the law as written, subject to legislative changes. Prop. 57 allows for nonviolent offenders to receive parole consideration by the California Department of Corrections, authorizes sentencing credits for inmates, and lastly, changes the policy for juveniles by allowing Juvenile Court Judges to determine whether or not juvenile offenders aged 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults. Previously, Prop. 21 was passed in March 2000 to give prosecutors the sole authority to decide whether to try minors as either a juvenile or an adult.
Maria Ramirez: I would seek legislation to include residential burglary, felonious assault with a firearm and deadly weapon, stalking and domestic violence charges in the definition of violent crime in Proposition 57. I would also seek legislation that in establishing custody credit protocols pursuant to Prop. 57, CDCR shall abide by PC 2933.1, 2933.2 and 1170.12.
John McKinney: I have spoken out extensively about the perils of Proposition 57. Proposition 57 has been most negatively impactful by allowing CDCR untrained and unelected bureaucrats to reduce prison sentences by up to 66% in some cases. I have publicly called for repealing this proposition or substantially modifying it to increase training, transparency, and accountability for prison administrators who are essentially acting as judges in the awarding of credits that can so drastically modify the sentence handed down in court. How do you intend to handle cases subject to the measure? Proposition 57’s conduct credits provisions do not involve the District Attorney, so there is nothing I can do under existing law.
Eric Siddall: While I support sentencing and juvenile justice reform, Proposition 57 had built-in errors that caused long-term damage to our criminal justice system. I actively campaigned against Prop. 57 by writing articles, giving speeches, interviews, and fundraising for the anti-Prop. 57 campaign.
My position on Prop. 57 is well documented. However, I do believe our sentencing laws need reform. We need to incentivize inmates to seek programming to lower recidivism. If an inmate feels that there is no hope to leave prison, not only will he not seek rehabilitative programs, but these policies increase the power of prison gangs, like the Mexican Mafia, that gain power from the sense of hopelessness. I believe this is what Prop. 57 attempted to correct, and to a certain extent, it helped. But I believe a more comprehensive approach needs to occur as to sentencing laws.
Dan Kapelovitz: Under Proposition 57, prosecutors cannot directly file juvenile cases in adult court. This seems more than reasonable. In fact, this provision of Proposition 57 does not go far enough. Juveniles should not be tried as adults at all. Today, a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Such a sentence for a minor is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause (even if the Supreme Court disagrees). Proposition 57 also allows for the possible early release of nonviolent offenders from prison. Proposition 57 is a step in the right direction, but to truly end mass incarceration, we need further improvements in sentencing reform and crime prevention.
Jonathan Hatami: California voters approved Prop. 57 in 2016. It promised to help prison overcrowding by letting nonviolent inmates seek parole sooner and reduce their sentences with credits for good behavior and rehabilitation programs. It also made it more difficult for prosecutors to treat juvenile offenders as adults.
Overall, Prop. 57 has helped decrease overcrowding in California’s prisons and has given inmates incentives to participate in rehabilitative programs. However, what Prop. 57 has also done is release incredible numbers of people who are dangerous and violent back into our communities to commit more crimes and victimize more innocent people.
People who are violent and who are not being rehabilitated have been released early and have gone on to victimize others. What many would consider violent offenses, like child abuse, domestic violence, elder abuse, human trafficking, rape of an unconscious person, and other crimes are considered “non-violent” under California law. This is a part of Prop. 57 that should be amended.
I would support amending Prop. 57 to reclassify certain crimes as “violent” so dangerous people are not released back into our communities early to hurt others, and reform, properly fund and improve the parole system and also expand parolee oversight to provide better public safety for the community.
Nathan Hochman: As with Proposition 47, while I do not support Proposition 57, I will have to work within its parameters as long as it is the law. At the same time, I will be a leader in seeking significant modifications or its complete repeal. I don’t think the public appreciates that there are certain crimes included in Proposition 57’s early release provisions, like adult human trafficking, rape of an unconscious person, certain domestic violence crimes, etc., that are deemed to be non-violent, non-serious felonies for which Proposition 57 permits early release.
As for my efforts in this regard, I strongly backed locally and in Sacramento, for instance, designating all human trafficking as a serious and violent felony. While I am pleased that child human trafficking received such a designation recently, the bulk of human trafficking involving those 18 and older, still unacceptably remains a nonviolent/non-serious felony subject to Proposition 57’s early release.
Jeff Chemerinsky: I support Proposition 57’s reforms. First, I generally believe that juveniles should be treated as juveniles. The science is compelling that the human brain is not fully formed until someone is well into their 20s. However, I am willing to consider that exceptional cases may present themselves that require transferring juveniles to adult status. I will ensure that such cases are subject to review at the highest levels of the District Attorney’s office before any determination is made. Second, as to Proposition 57’s change in parole consideration, my office will review such cases carefully to determine whether the District Attorney may have anything to add as to the relevant question inquiry at the parole hearing, namely, whether the individual is a danger to society.
Previously:
Where Los Angeles County district attorney candidates stand on Proposition 47
Where Los Angeles County district attorney candidates stand on the death penalty