Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > CDCR - What You Need to Know
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

CDCR - What You Need to Know Information relating to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. Q&A for those new to the CDCR system should be posted here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #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: 2,701
Thanks: 2,424
Thanked 2,574 Times in 1,132 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
  #52  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:37 AM
gvalliant gvalliant is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 757
Thanks: 1,415
Thanked 1,545 Times in 639 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickj View Post
The main problem with Prop.57

avoid the release of prisoners by federal court order


The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall adopt regulations in furtherance of these provisions
These were the problems with 57. The feds had control, releases were mandated. CDCR (the state) didn't like that the feds, not them, were in control. The solution, prop 57 which was smoke and mirrors that allowed CDCR to write their solution into their administrative law. I would have preferred that control remained with the Feds or a better state solution was created.

Title 15 is CDCR rules. Created by them. Enforced by them. Lacks oversight because no one in the public cares a whit about what happens with prisoners.

Unfortunately, without oversight the only solution left is the courts which we are seeing. The courts said no to the 3 strikes exclusion to early parole consideration. Now we see the courts saying no to CDCR's new parole eligibility process, that CDCR can't just make up a new method.

I don't like the proposed solution. CDCR does not have authority to make parole decisions, only the Parole Board has that authority. Huh? Who here believes that the Parole Board is not CDCR??? Now CDCR (Parole Board) will say "we need more money to hire more people to do this". They will get more money. They will hire more people. Those new parole board people will review under existing procedures. Which will take longer. And I bet they will reject exactly the same number of people for the same reasons.

CDCR retains control they want. They get more money and they get bigger. I'd like to see "reasonable" consideration for inmates getting early parole relief as the result. I don't understand how this will help that. I believe parole board will continue to deny consideration for the slightest of infractions going back in the inmates record for years. I am not convinced the amount of relief that was promised, or at least implied 57 would create will happen.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to gvalliant For This Useful Post:
miamac (05-09-2019), missingdee (05-09-2019), Patrickj (05-09-2019), Sarianna (05-09-2019)
  #53  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:34 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,701
Thanks: 2,424
Thanked 2,574 Times in 1,132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvalliant View Post
These were the problems with 57. The feds had control, releases were mandated. CDCR (the state) didn't like that the feds, not them, were in control. The solution, prop 57 which was smoke and mirrors that allowed CDCR to write their solution into their administrative law. I would have preferred that control remained with the Feds or a better state solution was created.

Title 15 is CDCR rules. Created by them. Enforced by them. Lacks oversight because no one in the public cares a whit about what happens with prisoners.

Unfortunately, without oversight the only solution left is the courts which we are seeing. The courts said no to the 3 strikes exclusion to early parole consideration. Now we see the courts saying no to CDCR's new parole eligibility process, that CDCR can't just make up a new method.

I don't like the proposed solution. CDCR does not have authority to make parole decisions, only the Parole Board has that authority. Huh? Who here believes that the Parole Board is not CDCR??? Now CDCR (Parole Board) will say "we need more money to hire more people to do this". They will get more money. They will hire more people. Those new parole board people will review under existing procedures. Which will take longer. And I bet they will reject exactly the same number of people for the same reasons.

CDCR retains control they want. They get more money and they get bigger. I'd like to see "reasonable" consideration for inmates getting early parole relief as the result. I don't understand how this will help that. I believe parole board will continue to deny consideration for the slightest of infractions going back in the inmates record for years. I am not convinced the amount of relief that was promised, or at least implied 57 would create will happen.
What this new court ruling will do is just create another position(s) with in the Parole Board agency. They will receive the input from CDCR. Then the Parole Board will just rubber stamp a Denial if the inmate has any of the items originally listed in the section the court deemed void. If an inmate has any kind of disciplinary issues in their file . The Parole Board will still find them unfit for parole consideration. Disciplinary actions shows that the inmate is not applying themselves in a positive rehabilitation manner. No matter how much the inmate may have taken other steps towards rehabilitation.
"If an inmate can not follow rules and regulations while incarcerated . How will they be a productive member of society " That is the thinking of those who have the control over who gets released
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-12-2019), missingdee (05-10-2019)
  #54  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:38 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 11,408
Thanks: 15,418
Thanked 22,822 Times in 8,082 Posts
Default

How does the state view BPH as separate from CDCR? I don't get that. I get that they are a separate division of corrections, but they work together abiding by the other's policies. That's my rant about how one considers a youth offender 18+ and another considers them over the age of 26. You can't have two standards to be met by one person across two agencies for the same goal of rehabilitation. If they're not in step, they're mucking it up for the other.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
EDYJO (05-09-2019), gvalliant (05-12-2019), missingdee (05-10-2019)
  #55  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:44 AM
missingdee's Avatar
missingdee missingdee is offline
Site Moderator

PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Metro Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,508
Thanks: 4,035
Thanked 6,303 Times in 2,353 Posts
Default

Not completely relevant to the Prop 57 topic but does generally apply to the subtopic of "who oversees who?"

Years ago I had an issue where I had to talk to someone from ISU because the warden's office did the whole "it's not my problem, if you disagree call this number" thing. And I asked the officer, a Sgt. Anthony at CIW, "who oversees you guys when something goes wrong with an investigation?"

I kid you not the man said "well, we oversee ourselves."


And I responded, sarcastically "oh, well then, I assume you must hold yourself to a really high standard."


And he chirped back, cheerfully, "we do!"



And I said "but you don't see how that's problematic?"

"Nope, it protects institutional security."


Everything in the name of "Institutional Security" right?
__________________
Missing Dee. Finding Serenity.



"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to missingdee For This Useful Post:
gvalliant (05-12-2019), miamac (05-10-2019), Patrickj (05-10-2019)
  #56  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:02 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,701
Thanks: 2,424
Thanked 2,574 Times in 1,132 Posts
Default

Everything in the name of "Institutional Security
The best cover up there is in CDCR. If all else fails we use that for our universal answer
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
miamac (05-10-2019)
  #57  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:22 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,701
Thanks: 2,424
Thanked 2,574 Times in 1,132 Posts
Lightbulb Updated May 2019 PROPOSITION 57: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER PAROLE CONSIDERATION

Updated May 2019 Here is some more "updated" information from Prison Law, on PROPOSITION 57: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER PAROLE CONSIDERATION(May 2019) Between Prop.57. Updates and Board of Prison Terms, and CDCR new Regulations and changes to new Regulations
my email is flooded with "current updates" that cancel the last "current updates". Getting to the point I just put them all in a file marked ON HOLD.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
Sarianna (05-14-2019)
  #58  
Old 06-30-2019, 06:05 PM
miamac's Avatar
miamac miamac is online now
Site Moderator

Staff Superstar Winner PTO Site Moderator 

 

Join Date: May 2013
Location: ORnativeAZresCAtied
Posts: 11,408
Thanks: 15,418
Thanked 22,822 Times in 8,082 Posts
Default

****As of June 2019, CDCR has had a major overhaul of their website. This has made many of our links ‘dead’ and changed the availability of some information. Please see the new links and descriptions below. If you find a broken link in the post, please report it to mia.



In order to reduce repeated questions, please view the links below before posting. Thank you!!

Summary:
Prop 57 passed in November of 2016. Final regulations were adopted May 1 of 2018. There are ongoing challenges 57 poses, we will try to stay up to date as those things change.

Quick Links:
Prop 57 FAQ (if you are new to Prop 57, please start here)
CDCR Prop 57 web page
Prop 57 Full Text (this is different than the version we had posted before which had a table of credit-earning programs at the end, if anyone has that document, please PM miamac)

Determinately Sentenced Non-Violent Offender (NVO) Parole Process
Indeterminately Sentenced (Third-Striker) NVO Parole Process
Credit Earning Opportunities (Milestones, Education, Rehabilitation and Good Conduct):


Prison Law Office (PLO) Prop 57 Information Sheet (updated 1/2019)

Past PTO threads regarding Prop 57:
One, Two, Three

Other helpful links:
Nonprofit group,
Initiate Justice, for information, volunteer opportunities and news regarding changing regulations inside California

What is encouraged in this thread:
-Links to Prop 57 news stories
-Links to advocacy groups directly working on Prop 57 issues
-Posting of documents such as Prop 57 guides, memos or legal filings
-Questions regarding how Prop 57 may affect your loved one.

In an effort to ensure accurate and clear communication, please link or cite your source whenever possible. If you need help with posting a link or learning how to attach documents to your post, please contact a moderator.

As a reminder, this thread is for peer to peer advice only. We encourage you to discuss specific questions with a person of qualified legal background such as an attorney.

Last edited by miamac; 06-30-2019 at 06:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miamac For This Useful Post:
Patrickj (06-30-2019), Sarianna (07-01-2019), sidewalker (07-01-2019)
  #59  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:02 PM
Patrickj's Avatar
Patrickj Patrickj is offline
Moderator

PTO Moderator 

 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atwater CA. USA.
Posts: 2,701
Thanks: 2,424
Thanked 2,574 Times in 1,132 Posts
Default

Ok I am on vacation in NV. Been doing a little digging around at CDCR web site Proposition 57 Parole Consideration for Nonviolent Offenders Implementation Plan for the McGhee Decision FACT SHEET There is more information on non-violent parole reviews( this is the type of hearing where the inmate does not attend the hearing) at Board of Parole Hearings right hand side Hearing and Parole Review I still have more reviewing to do. At a later time.
__________________
Be a friend to everyone,never know when you may need their help
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Patrickj For This Useful Post:
miamac (08-04-2019), missingdee (08-05-2019)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prop 57, Part III, Regulation Implementation (California) gvalliant CDCR - What You Need to Know 1161 05-03-2018 12:34 PM
Implementation of Inmate Credit Earning Program at California out of state correction Shari California General Prison Talk 5 09-29-2010 09:57 PM
The final phase is over... LauraAK Michigan Parole, Probation, Halfway Houses, Employment, etc. 5 06-30-2009 08:47 AM
Part of Prop 9 Overturned regarding parolees linda5280 California Parole, Probation & Release 0 03-28-2009 06:16 PM
The Final Phase!!!! Atleast I Hope It Is SASSIE21898 Georgia Prison & Jail – Visitation, Phones, Packages & Mail 4 01-11-2005 09:30 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 AM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics