topnav

Home Issues & Campaigns Agency Members Community News Contact Us

Community News

Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.

Showing posts with label american civil liberties union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american civil liberties union. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Capitol Alert: Jerry Brown signs bill giving prisoners convicted as juveniles shot at parole

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring special parole hearings for prisoners who were prosecuted as adults and sent to prison for crimes they committed as juveniles, his office announced late Monday.


Senate Bill 260, by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, will make inmates imprisoned for crimes they committed before turning 18 eligible for parole during their 15th, 20th, or 25th year of incarceration, depending on the severity of their sentences.
The bill excludes certain sex offenders, people sentenced under the state's "three strikes" law and those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The bill was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Prison Law Office and Human Rights Watch, among others. Supporters argued existing law fails to afford people given lengthy sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles a chance to demonstrate rehabilitation and maturity.
The bill was opposed by many law enforcement groups, who said the new hearing process could lead to the release of dangerous offenders. According to a legislative analysis, opponents objected specifically to a provision of the law requiring the state Board of Parole Hearings to give "great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law."
PHOTO: Gov. Jerry Brown talks to members of the press on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua

Thursday, May 2, 2013

California Senate Approves Common Sense Drug Sentencing Reform Bill


S.B. 649 Would Help End California’s Overincarceration Crisis by Reducing Needless and Costly Incarceration for Low Level Drug Possession and Freeing Up Money for Programs Proven to Reduce Recidivism

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 2, 2013

CONTACT:
Will Matthews, ACLU of California, (415) 293-6309; wmatthews@aclunc.org
Ali Bay, press secretary, Office of Senator Mark Leno, (916) 651-4011; ali.bay@sen.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO – The California state Senate today approved a bill that would reform California’s drug sentencing laws for simple possession, significantly reduce incarceration costs for counties and help the state end its ongoing incarceration crisis.

S.B. 649, the Local Control in Sentencing Act, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), was approved by the Senate in a 23-14 vote, and moves now to the state Assembly for consideration.

“We commend the Senate for approving this bill at a time when lasting, sustainable and common sense solutions to California’s ongoing incarceration crisis are so needed,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, senior criminal justice and drug policy advocate for the ACLU of California. “This bill will help counties break the state’s addiction to incarceration by enabling them to invest their limited resources in the community-based treatment, rehabilitation and education programs proven to reduce recidivism, prevent crime and increase public safety.”

The bill, sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the Drug Policy Alliance and others, gives prosecutors the flexibility to charge low-level drug possession for personal use as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The bill also gives judges discretion to deem a low-level drug possession offense to be either a misdemeanor or felony after consideration of the offense and the defendant’s record. S.B. 649, which does not apply to anyone involved in selling, manufacturing or possessing drugs for sale, will give counties the flexibility to safely alleviate overcrowding in county jails, ease pressure on California’s court system and result in more than $100 million in annual savings for the state and local governments.

“One of the best ways to promote lower crime rates is to provide low-level offenders with the rehabilitation they need to successfully reenter their communities,” said Leno. “However, our current laws do just the opposite. We give non-violent drug offenders long terms, offer them no treatment while they’re incarcerated and then release them back into the community with few job prospects or opportunities to receive an education. SB 649 gives local governments the flexibility to choose reduced penalties so that they can reinvest in proven alternatives that benefit minor offenders and reserve limited jail space for serious criminals.”

S.B. 649 will allow counties to reduce jail spending and dedicate resources to probation, drug treatment and mental health services that have proven most effective in reducing crime. It will also help law enforcement rededicate resources to more serious offenders. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates reducing penalties for drug possession could save the state and counties about $159 million annually.

Across the country, 13 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government treat drug possession as a misdemeanor. Drug crime is not higher in those states. A statewide poll of Californians conducted by Tulchin Research late last year showed that an overwhelming majority of Californians support this type of drug sentencing reform, with 75 percent of state voters favoring investment in prevention and alternatives to jail for non-violent offenders. In addition, 62 percent of Californians agree that the penalty for possessing a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

Along with the ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance, the bill is sponsored by the California NAACP, the California Public Defenders Association, the William C. Velasquez Institute, Californians for Safety and Justice and the Friends Committee on Legislation.


Tuesday, November 20, 2012

California voted ‘yes’ on Prop 35; experts, police and sex workers disagree on impact


On November 6, Californians passed Proposition 35, also known as the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act, which will increase the penalties for convicted human traffickers, mandate law enforcement training in identifying and handling trafficking victims, and require convicted traffickers to disclose their Internet service providers, screen names and email addresses to law enforcement. Proposition 35 also changed California’s evidence code, which regulates evidence that can be used in court, to prevent a trafficking victim’s sexual history from being discussed in a courtroom when he or she sues their traffickers.

Backers argued that Proposition 35 would protect women and children who are being forced into prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation and allow victims—especially children—to confront their abusers in court. “When I drafted this, I wanted to do two things: I wanted to recognize the severity of the crime and I also wanted to recognize the victims as victims, not as criminals,” said Daphne Phung, the initiative’s author and the founder of California Against Slavery, a nonprofit group that was a major proponent of the Yes on 35 campaign.

But now that voters have passed Proposition 35 by a whopping 81 percent, there is little agreement among law enforcement agencies, legal experts and sex workers about how the initiative will affect adults who voluntarily choose to work in the sex industry, especially with regard to the owners of indoor places of work, like brothels, escort services and massage parlors.

During the campaign, sex workers, as well as some anti-trafficking organizations and civil rights groups, opposed Proposition 35, citing concerns like the mandatory disclosure of Internet habits and identities for convicted traffickers. The day after it passed, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the Internet disclosure provision.

Read the rest of the story from Titania Kumeh and Samantha Masunaga at Oakland North.Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

via SFGATE