Sen. Davis Urges Overhaul of Criminal Justice System

Calling the California criminal justice system “an archaic system” that fails to protect the rights of victims, state Sen. Ed Davis on Wednesday advocated a series of sweeping legislative changes.

The recommendations include the elimination of preliminary hearings in criminal cases, a reduction in the legal blood-alcohol limit in drunk driving cases from .10% to .08%, an overhaul of the state’s Victim Restitution Fund and increased funding for juvenile drug abuse and crime prevention programs.

Davis, a Valencia Republican and announced candidate for the seat now held by Democratic U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, developed the recommendations after holding a series of hearings on crime and punishment around the state this summer. The former Los Angeles police chief, along with Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, Atherton Police Chief Richard L. Moore and Boalt Hall law professor Phillip E. Johnson, heard testimony from “law-and-order” groups, crime victims and victims’ rights advocates, civic leaders and law enforcement officials during visits to eight cities.

“We wanted to see what the public wanted us to do about crime,” Davis told a Los Angeles news conference Wednesday. “We found that victims of crime are angry. . . . They think the criminal justice system does nothing for the victims but forget about them.

“It’s an archaic system. It doesn’t function,” he said. “The system is not working for the victims. The victims feel absolutely left out.” In his report, which is being sent to the governor and fellow legislators, Davis said, “At its best, the system grinds out a mediocre product, and at its worse, the system is a farce. . . .”

Other Davis proposals would:

- Change the Penal Code to allow victims to attend all hearings in criminal cases.

- Expand conditions under which testimony of child victims is allowed in child abuse cases.

- Allow grand jury indictments to usurp the role of preliminary hearings in criminal cases.

- Limit the number of pretrial hearings criminal defendants may have.

- Allow habitual violent criminals to be sentenced to life in prison.

- Eliminate “good-time” credits for some prisoners sentenced for violent crimes.

- Expand the list of special circumstances that make murderers eligible for the death penalty.

- Tighten the state’s pornography standards.

Davis said he intends to have most of the recommendations introduced as legislation next year. He conceded, however, that many of his proposals have already been the subjects of proposed bills that have failed repeatedly in the Legislature. He blamed the failures on his “liberal” colleagues.

The senator said, however, that the success of 1982’s Proposition 8--the so-called Victims’ Bill of Rights--provides legislators with an incentive to pass more victim-oriented legislation.

“None of these will be easy to pass,” Davis said. “If it doesn’t pass, we will resort to the Victims’ Bill of Rights kind of thing, and the people will pass it.”

Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), head of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, which Davis called the “graveyard” of tough anti-crime legislation, said Davis has a better chance than in the past of getting his legislation approved, because the committee has “moved a little bit to the right.”

Improvement Told

“In the last year, there has been substantial improvement in victims bills in all cases,” Stirling said in a telephone interview. “There were only a couple of cases where the conservative view did not prevail (in the committee).”

Richard Hirsch, vice president of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, an organization of defense attorneys, said his group would oppose any of Davis’ measures that would eliminate safeguards that protect the rights of criminal defendants.

“I think everyone is sympathetic to the plight of the victim,” Hirsch, a Los Angeles lawyer, said in a telephone interview. “. . . But some (of Davis’ proposals) would do a disservice to the victim.

“The way to help the victim is not to keep coming up with new laws. . . . We have more on the books now than we know what to do with,” he said. “If they are carried out, we will be protecting the rights of the victims.”