View Single Post
  #51  
Old 05-06-2019, 01:13 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,710
Thanks: 2,451
Thanked 2,607 Times in 1,141 Posts
Default

The main problem with Prop.57 is how it is written in Section1 Article 32(a) of the California Constitution.

SEC. 32.
(a) The following provisions are hereby enacted to enhance public safety, improve rehabilitation, and avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order, notwithstanding anything in this article or any other provision of law:
(1) Parole Consideration: Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.
(A) For purposes of this section only, the full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence.
(2) Credit Earning: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall have authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements.
(b) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety.
(Sec. 32 added Nov. 8, 2016, by Prop. 57. Initiative measure.)


You can have 50 different legal authorities read this and you will get twenty five different views. This is how CDCR wrote its new and amended Regulations. They view this (in their eyes) to support that their new regulations comply with this section of the California Constitution. Yet Two different District Courts of Appeal have said that there are( so far) sections with in their new regulations that are unconstitutional for parole pertaining to indeterminate and determinate sentences being considered for parole. The latest rules says that CDCR should not be doing the screening process of people eligible for the consideration of parole . The Court says this is the duty of the Parole Board not CDCR and their "two tier" process. Are the courts going to have to review each new and amended Regulations on a case by case bases?
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
Halo527 (05-07-2019), missingdee (05-06-2019), Sarianna (05-09-2019)
Sponsored Links