Bill to Keep Spouses From Murderers Defeated : Corrections: Umberg’s effort to halt unsupervised visits is opposed by Bay Area liberal assemblymen. He will ask governor to change the policy administratively.

A key Assembly panel on Tuesday rejected an Orange County lawmaker’s bill that would have stripped convicted murderers of the right to enjoy unsupervised visits with spouses or loved ones.

*

Noting that inmates sentenced to life in prison sometimes end up producing children while behind bars, Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) argued that convicted murderers “should not be allowed to enjoy the comfort of another human being.”

But members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee split 3 to 3 on the issue, denying Umberg the votes he needed to push the measure forward. Opponents on the panel suggested that such restrictions would be mean-spirited and simply drive inmates toward more abhorrent behavior while imprisoned.

“It seems to me the last thing you want to do is put a person in a position where they’ve got nothing left to lose,” said Assemblyman John Burton (D-San Francisco), who was joined by two other liberal Bay Area lawmakers in opposing the bill.

Umberg said he was upset by the bill’s rejection, but vowed to ask Gov. Pete Wilson to change the policy administratively. The Republican governor might not look favorably on a request from Umberg, who is planning to run for state attorney general. But the Orange County Democrat might ask Assemblyman Dean Andal (R-Stockton), who carried a similar bill last year, to join in the request.

“It now appears we won’t be able to change this legislatively, so we’ll try it administratively,” Umberg said. “My intent was to prohibit visits where children could be conceived. In my view, it’s unbelievable that those serving life in prison without the possibility of parole are allowed to bear children.”

Under current laws, all prisoners except those on Death Row have the right to unsupervised personal visits with spouses or loved ones in special quarters at a correctional facility. The visits are meted out sparingly, often coming only once every three months. Umberg’s bill would have extended the prohibition on such unsupervised visits to inmates convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Currently, 1,100 people are serving life sentences. In 1992, 547 inmates participated in unsupervised visits. California is one of only eight states in the nation that allow such visits for prisoners serving life terms.

Umberg’s proposal came under harsh attack from groups representing prisoners’ rights and the spouses of inmates. Several dozen women and children crowded the hearing room, each one wearing a pinned-on photograph of them with their loved one in prison.

They argued that the ban would be harmful to families and irreparably hurt the relationship of spouses. One woman said she has a constitutional right to bear children with her husband who is serving a life term. Others noted that such visits are often the only significant contact an inmate has with the outside world.

Burton, meanwhile, suggested that eliminating the visits, which are permitted only if an inmate is displaying good behavior, would strip prison authorities of “a good management tool” to keep convicted murderers in line.

Supporters of the measure said the visits were producing children who could become a burden to taxpayers by driving up welfare costs needed to support their single-parent families. But they could not produce statistics to support that claim.

State prison guards, meanwhile, said the visits are a routine avenue for smuggling drugs into prison. They said the one California lockup where prisoners aren’t allowed unsupervised visits--the Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City--does not have a problem with drugs.