Bill to Revamp Sentencing Laws Put Off as Too Costly

A sweeping measure that would overhaul California’s sentencing laws got its first public airing at a state legislative hearing Tuesday, but was referred for further study after its author said it was too costly to be considered this session.

The bill, drafted by the California District Attorneys Assn. and introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), is designed to simplify the state’s chaotic sentencing system, which is so complex that it is often compared to the Internal Revenue Service Code.

Prosecutors say the bill is designed to bring logic and order to the system and to eliminate what they see as artificial limitations in existing laws.

But although the district attorneys’ association claims the bill is not aimed at increasing penalties, critics, including the defense bar and the American Civil Liberties Union, believe that it would further swell an already burgeoning prison population.

Analysts for Lockyer’s committee determined that the measure would “drastically exacerbate the current prison overcrowding crisis” by augmenting some prison terms and allowing judges greater discretion to mete out stiffer sentences by eliminating certain restrictions in the current laws.

Patrick Kenady, legislative liaison for the state Department of Corrections, told the Judiciary Committee that the bill would add at least 8,230 inmate-years to the prison system by the year 2000. Such an increase would cost the state a total of $780 million in capital and operating expenses, he said.

“Just as a fiscal matter I don’t think we can increase sentences in California,” Lockyer said. He urged that an effort be made to “try to achieve something that might be called sentence-neutral.”

After the hearing, Chief Assistant Alameda County Dist. Atty. Richard B. Iglehart maintained that the potential cost of the bill has been exaggerated. He noted that minimum penalties for the least serious felonies would be reduced from 16 months to a year, which he said would compensate for the increases.

Since 1977, when a system of fixed terms--known as “determinate sentencing”--went into effect, the Legislature has made more than 150 changes in the penalties for various crimes. Most of these piecemeal changes came about as legislators, responding to public outcry over high-profile crimes, made sentences tougher.

Because of the complexity of the laws governing penalties, errors in sentencing account for more appellate reversals than any other single factor.

The Lockyer bill would reorganize the sentencing laws so that all crimes besides murder would fall into one of five categories of crimes, with terms ranging from one, two and three years for the least serious offenses, to four, eight and 12 years for the most serious.

Defense attorneys testifying at Tuesday’s hearing said they applauded the prosecutors’ organization for taking the initiative to revise the sentencing laws.

“We commend them for their efforts to simplify, rationalize and make fair a system of sentencing which after 10 years is showing some amount of disarray,” state Public Defender Harvey R. Zall testified.

Under the more controversial provisions of the bill, judges would no longer be prevented from imposing multiple “enhancements,” which add years to a penalty if the crime was committed under certain circumstances, such as if a gun was used.