BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair A
2007-2008 Regular Session B
1
5
0
AB 1509 (Spitzer) 9
As Amended June 19, 2007
Hearing date: July 3, 2007
Penal Code; Welfare & Institutions Code
JM:br
PLACEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS :
PLACEMENT OF CONDITIONALLY RELEASED SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 893 (Horton) - Ch. 162, Stats. 2005
AB 2450 (Canciamilla) - Ch. 425, Stats. 2004
AB 493 (Salinas) - Ch. 222, Stats. 2004
SB 659 (Correa) - Ch. 248, Stats. 2001
AB 1142 (Runner) - Ch. 323, Stats. 2001
SB 2018 (Schiff) - Ch. 420, Stats. 2000
SB 451 (Schiff) - Ch. 41, Stats. 2000
AB 2849 (Havice) - Ch. 643, Stats. 2000
SB 746 (Schiff) - Ch. 995, Stats. 1999
SB 11 (Schiff) - Ch. 136, Stats. 1999
SB 1976 (Mountjoy) - Ch. 961, Stats. 1998
AB 888 (Rogan) - Ch. 763, Stats. 1995
SB 1143 (Mountjoy) - Ch. 764, Stats 1995
Support: League of California Cities; California State
Association of Counties; Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageB
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A PAROLEE WHO WAS CONVICTED OF CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF A
CHILD NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 35 MILES OF THE VICTIM'S OR WITNESS'
RESIDENCE, IF THE VICTIM OR WITNESS REQUESTS SUCH A PLACEMENT, THUS
MAKING PLACEMENT IN SUCH CASES EQUIVALENT TO PLACEMENT UNDER
EXISTING LAW CONCERNING INMATES CONVICTED OF OTHER SPECIFIED
"VIOLENT" SEX CRIMES?
WHERE PLACEMENT OF A SPECIFIED VIOLENT PAROLEE AT LEAST 35 MILES
FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM OR WITNESS WOULD RESULT IN
PLACEMENT OUTSIDE THE PAROLEE'S COUNTY OF LAST LEGAL RESIDENCE,
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION (CDCR) BE
ALLOWED TO PLACE ANOTHER PAROLEE INTO THE COUNTY OF LAST LEGAL
RESIDENCE OF THE INMATE WHO WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT SEX OFFENSE
OR INFLICTION OF GREAT BODILY INJURY?
SHOULD A PERSON WHO IS RELEASED FROM THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR
(SVP) PROGRAM BE PROHIBITED FROM RESIDING WITHIN 35 MILES OF THE
RESIDENCE OF A VICTIM OF OR WITNESS TO THE SVP PATIENT'S PRIOR
SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENSE, IF THE VICTIM REQUESTS SUCH A PLACEMENT?
WHERE HOUSING FOR A CONDITIONALLY RELEASED SVP PATIENT CANNOT BE
FOUND AT LEAST 35 MILES FROM THE RESIDENCE OF A VICTIM OF, OR
WITNESS TO, THE SVP PATIENT'S SPECIFIED PRIOR CRIMES, AND WITHIN THE
COUNTY OF DOMICILE OF THE SVP PATIENT, SHOULD THE LAW ALLOW THE
PERSON TO BE PLACED WITHIN THE COUNTY OF DOMICILE, BUT AT "AS GREAT
A DISTANCE AS FEASIBLE" BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE SVP PATIENT?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) provide that where a parolee
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageC
imprisoned for a violent sex crime (or specified violent act) is
placed more than 35 miles from the residence of a victim and the
placement is outside the county of the parolee's county of legal
residence, CDCR can place another parolee in the county of last
legal residence of the sex offender, as specified; 2) provide
that where an inmate who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse
of a child is paroled, the inmate shall be paroled to a place
more than 35 miles from the residence of the victim, if the
victim so requests, as specified; 3) provide that a conditionally
released sexually violent predator patient shall be placed no
less than 35 miles from the residence of a victim of the SVP
patient's prior sexually violent offense, if the victim so
requests, as specified; and 4) provide that where a residence for
the SVP patient cannot be located within the county of domicile
and at least 35 miles from residence of the victim or witness to
the SVP patient's prior sex offense or offenses, placement can be
made in the county of the SVP patient's domicile, but as far as
feasible from the victim or witness.
SVP Placement - Existing Law and This Bill
Existing law provides that a patient conditionally released from
the SVP program shall be released into the county of the
patient's domicile, unless "extraordinary circumstances require
placement outside the county of civil commitment." (Welf. &
Inst. Code 6608.5, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires the county of SVP commitment to designate
a county agency to consult with and assist DMH in obtaining
housing for a conditionally released SVP patient. (Welf. &
Inst. Code 6608.5, subd. (d).)
Existing law (Welf. & Inst. Code 6608.5, subd. (e)) requires
DMH to consider the following factors in making a specific
recommendation for placement:
The concerns and proximity of the victim or victim's
next of kin.
The age and characteristics of the victims of the SVP
patient's prior crimes.
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageD
Existing law requires a person released on conditional release
in the SVP treatment program not be placed within one-quarter
mile of any public or private school providing instruction in
kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, if specified
crimes involving children are present. (Welf. & Inst. Code
6608.5, subd. (f).)
This bill specifies that persons who are conditionally released
in the SVP program shall not be housed in a location within 35
miles of a victim or witness' residence when the victim or
witness has "requested additional distance in the placement of
the inmate on parole."
This bill additionally would provide that in "the event that
housing is not available 35 miles or more from the actual
residence of a victim or witness within the conditionally
released person's county of domicile, then the person shall
nevertheless be placed in his or her county of domicile in
accordance with Section 6608.5, keeping as great a distance as
feasible between the victim or witness and the person who is
conditionally released."
Parole Placement of Violent Sex Offenders and Felons who
Inflicted Great Bodily Injury - Existing Law and This Bill
Existing law requires, subject to specified exceptions that
serve the public interest, that an inmate who is released on
parole shall be returned to the county that was the last legal
residence of the inmate prior to his or her incarceration.
(Pen. Code 3003, subd. (a).)
Existing law (Pen. Code 3003) provides the following
exceptions to the "last legal residence" requirements:
An inmate who is released on parole shall not be
returned to a location within 35 miles of the actual
residence of a victim of, or a witness to, specified
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageE
violent sex offenses or a felony in which the
defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person,
if the victim or witness has requested additional
distance in the placement of the inmate on parole, and
if Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) or the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
finds that there is a need to protect the life,
safety, or well-being of a victim or witness. (Pen.
Code 3003, subd. (f).)
An inmate who is released on parole for a violation
of lewd and lascivious acts or continuous sexual abuse
of a child, whom the CDCR determines poses a high risk
to the public, shall not be placed or reside, for the
duration of his or her parole, within one-half mile of
any public or private school. (Pen. Code 3003, subd.
(g)(1).)
An inmate who is released on parole for an offense
involving stalking shall not be returned to a location
within 35 miles of the victim's actual residence or
place of employment if the victim or witness has
requested additional distance in the placement of the
inmate on parole, and if the BPH or the CDCR finds
that there is a need to protect the life, safety, or
wellbeing of the victim. (Pen. Code 3003, subd.
(g)(2).)
An inmate may be returned to another county if that
would be in the best interests of the public. If the
BPH or CDCR decides on a return to another county, it
shall place its reasons in writing in the parolee's
permanent record. (Pen. Code 3003, subd. (b).) In
making its decision, the paroling authority shall
consider, among others, the following factors, giving
the greatest weight to the protection of the victim
and the safety of the community:
o The need to protect the life or safety of
a victim, the parolee, a witness, or any other
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageF
person.
o Public concern that would reduce the
chance that the inmate's parole would be
successfully completed.
o The verified existence of a work offer, or
an educational or vocational training program.
o The existence of family in another county
with whom the inmate has maintained strong ties
and whose support would increase the chance
that the inmate's parole would be successfully
completed.
o The lack of necessary outpatient treatment
programs for parolees receiving treatment as
mentally disordered offenders.
CDCR, in determining an out-of-county commitment, must
give priority to the safety of the community and to any
witnesses and victims.
This bill authorizes CDCR, in cases where a parolee may not
return to the county of last legal residence due to the
proximity of the victim, to place another out-of-county parolee
in that county where proper notice is given.
This bill amends existing law by adding parolees convicted of
continuous sexual abuse to the list of parolees subject to
restrictions on placement within 35-miles of the residence of a
victim or witness.
This bill makes additional technical corrections to these
provisions.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageG
significant level of overcrowding.<1> In addition, California's
jails likewise are significantly overcrowded. Twenty California
counties are operating under jail population caps. According to
the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties are currently
releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates every month and
many counties are so overcrowded they do not accept misdemeanor
bookings in any form, . . . ."<2> In January of this year the
Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory of
California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<3>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
--------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007).
<2> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
<3> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageH
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<4>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
---------------------------
<4> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageI
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<5>
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison and jail
overcrowding crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The High Risk Sex Offender Task Force was created by
the Governor . . . on May 15, 2006. The purpose of
the Task Force (which I and former Assembly Member
Bermudez chaired) was to review statutory
requirements and departmental policies on
notification, placement, monitoring and enforcement
of parole policies and to make recommendations to
improve each. The Task Force submitted ten
recommendations on August 15, 2006.
Shortly thereafter, the Governor issued a second
Executive Order . . . to expand upon the work already
----------------------
<5> Primer, supra, fn. 4.
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageJ
done with the High Risk Sex Offender Task Force by
adding new review criteria for evaluation. The Task
Force then reviewed the practices of Sexually Violent
Predators (SVPs). The second report, containing 26
recommendations, was submitted to the Governor on
December 1, 2006.
While the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Department of Health
and Human Services Agency have been working to
implement the recommendations of the Task Force, many
of the recommendations require legislation.
AB 1509 incorporates two of the recommendations from
the second report. The Task Force recommended that .
. . the victims identified in the CDCR adjudication
process and/or the District Attorneys in SVP trial
have the right and opportunity to challenge the
placement of the SVPs. This is similar to the
process that is done by CDCR in the placement of
parolees convicted of a violent felony or a felony
inflicting great bodily injury pursuant to Penal Code
3003 (f). Victims of violent felonies [may]
challenge the placement of a parolee, but the victim
of an SVP does not have such an opportunity, although
the SVP was civilly committed after having been
imprisoned for a violent sexual offense. AB 1509
closes this inappropriate discrepancy in the law. In
the event that housing within the SVP's county of
domicile is not available 35 miles from the victim's
residence, the SVP shall be placed at the greatest
distance possible from the victim.
In addition, the Task Force noted that Penal Code
3003 provides which victims have the right to insist
that parolees not be placed within 35 miles of the
actual residence of the victim. That provision
applies to any victim of a violent felony specified
in paragraphs (1) to (7) of subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5 of the Penal Code and to any victim of
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageK
a felony in which the defendant inflicted great
bodily injury upon a person. The crime of continuous
sexual abuse of a child, contained in Penal Code
Section 288.5 is not referenced in these provisions.
A victim of lewd and lascivious acts on a child has
the right to insist that the offender not be placed
within 35 miles of the victim's home, but a victim of
continuous sexual abuse of a child does not. The
Task Force believed this to be a Legislative
oversight corrected by AB 1509.
2. Courts have Encountered Overwhelming Difficulties Placing
Conditionally Released SVP Patients in the Community;
This Bill Requires Placement at Least 35 Miles from the a
Prior Victim's Residence, upon Request
The first person to be conditionally released from the SVP
program was Brian DeVries. He was ordered released by the
Santa Clara Superior Court (the court of commitment) in
February 2003. Shortly after DeVries was ordered released,
DMH representatives informed Committee staff that local law
enforcement and local government entities made it very
difficult to place DeVries in Santa Clara County. Public
officials and the public objected to placement in San Jose.
DMH argued that law enforcement officers attempted to
convince property owners not to rent to DeVries. DeVries
was eventually placed in a trailer on the grounds of
Salinas Valley State Prison in August of 2003, although
outside the gates of the actual prison. Residents and
officials in the nearby community of Soledad vocally
opposed the placement, although it appeared that placement
in San Jose was impossible. DeVries successfully completed
his conditional release and then moved to Washington State
to live with his father.
Cary Verse was conditionally released in early 2004. DMH was
unable to find housing for Verse in the county of commitment -
Contra Costa. Verse, in the face of official and private
protests, has lived for short periods at a Marin County motel,
an Oakland residential hotel and a St. Francis Abbey, a halfway
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageL
house for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Protests
were particularly vehement at the abbey. A March 16, 2004
article in the San Francisco Chronicle stated that building
inspectors closed the abbey for violating zoning laws.
After problematic placements in San Jose, Verse was eventually
placed in a second unit on the grounds of a private residence in
Contra Costa County. Verse was returned to the inpatient
facility after he was found to be in the company of a minor with
the consent of the minor's parents, who were aware of Verse's
background. Verse has since then again been conditionally
released.
Timothy Boggs was conditionally released in Sacramento
County on July 28, 2006. The judge who heard that matter
concluded that DMH and its representatives had done
virtually nothing to obtain a residence for Boggs for over
a year. The court released Boggs without a specific
residential placement. According to an article on the KXTV
Web site, DMH stated that it had made 269 contacts since
around May 2005 in an unsuccessful attempt to find a
residence for Boggs.
Similar circumstances have occurred with other SVP
placements. After a court orders an SVP patient to be
conditionally released, months and months will go by until
a placement can be found.
3. Existing Provisions Directing DMH to Consider Victim
Concerns in Placing Conditionally Released SVP Patients
Under existing law, DMH (and the court) must consider "the
concerns and proximity of the victim or the victim's next
of kin." DMH and the court must also consider "the age and
profile of the victim or victims" of the SVP patient's
prior crimes. (Welf. & Inst. Code 6608.5, subd. (e).)
These provisions were enacted in AB 493 (Salinas), Ch. 222,
Stats. 2004, and AB 893 (Horton) Ch. 162, Stats. 2005. The
provisions were enacted pursuant to numerous Committee
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageM
hearings, floor debates and meetings.
The 35-mile placement requirement for conditionally
released SVP patients was a recommendation of the recent
High Risk Sex Offender and Sexually Violent Predator Task
Force. It does not appear that the report explains this
recommendation. The report gives no examples of cases
where a conditionally released patient contacted or
attempted to contact a victim or witness from a prior
crime. Conditionally released patients are closely
monitored and subject to extremely stringent conditions of
release. Any attempted contact with a victim, witness, or
even any inappropriate party would virtually certainly
result in a return of the patient to confinement.
DO EXISTING PROVISIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT
PLACING CONDITIONALLY RELEASED SVP PATIENTS TOO CLOSE TO
VICTIMS?
AS CONCERNS VICTIM CONTACT OR PROXIMITY, HAVE THERE BEEN
ANY REPORTED PROBLEMS WITH PLACEMENTS OF CONDITIONALLY
RELEASED SVP PATIENTS?
4. Specific Issues Raised by the 35-Mile Prohibition
Many California counties, including some of its most populous,
are smaller than 35 miles across. To place someone within their
county of domicile, and to do so at least 35 miles from a victim
or witness, is not possible in counties such as San Francisco.
Placement would be very difficult in any of the Bay Area
counties. It is also not possible in counties the size of
Orange, Fresno, and Kern, if the victim or witness lives in the
county's population center.
In Los Angeles County, only Lancaster and Palmdale are more than
35 miles from millions of county residents; in San Diego County,
only the communities of the northern part of the county are more
than 35 miles from the county's population center. One can
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageN
imagine that treatment facilities in Lancaster, Palmdale, and
northern San Diego County might be lacking; and, it is not
unreasonable to believe that these communities would express the
view that they are becoming a "dumping ground."
In order to avoid placement of SVP patients outside the county
of domicile, this bill allows placement of the patient to be
within 35 miles of the residence of a victim if housing is not
available, "keeping as great a distance feasible between the
victim . . . and the [SVP patient.]." The bill does not
prescribe how DMH or the court would determine what is feasible.
Arguably, such a standard could lead to substantial dispute and
controversy.
As noted above, even under existing law DMH and the courts have
had incredible difficulty locating a residence for conditionally
released SVP patients. In some cases, patients were moved in
the dark of night on a daily basis. It can be argued that this
bill will make this very difficult situation significantly more
difficult. In some SVP cases judges have stated that they could
be forced to release a patient unconditionally if a residence
could not be found. The court in a recent Sacramento case
finally released a patient without approving of a residential
placement. The patient was allowed to live where he could find
a place in the county.
It could be argued that no person under state supervision
released into the community is subject to the level of
control and scrutiny of a conditionally released SVP
patient. Even a parolee in a special intensive supervision
category has far less supervision than an SVP. An SVP has
prevailed in a hearing where he had the burden to prove
that he was not a danger to the public if released under
supervision. A parolee who was imprisoned for a violent
sex offense must be released when his prison term is over.
Such a parolee did not have to prove that he or she was not
a danger to the public. A violent sex offender parolee,
unlike an SVP patient, received no sex offender treatment
prior to release.
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageO
WILL THE PROVISION IN THE BILL REQUIRING PLACEMENT OF AN SVP
PATIENT AT LEAST 35 MILES FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM, OR
AS GREAT A DISTANCE FROM THE VICTIM AS FEASIBLE WITHIN THE
COUNTY OF DOMICILE OF THE SVP PATIENT, UNREASONABLY LIMIT THE
ABILITY OF DMH AND THE COURT TO FIND A PLACEMENT FOR THE
PATIENT?
COULD THE PLACEMENT PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL RESULT IN COMPLAINTS
OF PATIENT DUMPING FROM COMMUNITIES WHERE CONDITIONALLY RELEASED
SVP PATIENTS ARE PLACED?
IF DMH IS UNABLE TO LOCATE A RESIDENCE FOR AN SVP PATIENT, IN
PART BECAUSE OF THE PLACEMENT LIMITS IN THIS BILL, COULD COURTS
CONDITIONALLY RELEASE PATIENTS WITHOUT A RESIDENCE APPROVED BY
THE COURT, AS OCCURRED RECENTLY IN SACRAMENTO?
ARE CONDITIONALLY RELEASED SVP PATIENTS SIMILARLY SITUATED TO
INMATES PAROLED AFTER SERVING PRISON TERMS FOR VIOLENT SEX
OFFENSES, SUCH THAT LIMITS ON PLACEMENTS WITHIN 35 MILES OF
VICTIMS SHOULD APPLY TO BOTH CLASSES OF PERSONS?
5. Organized City Government Opposition to SVP Placements
As noted above, some local officials have been very vehement in
opposing SVP placements. This has been true regardless of
whether the SVP patient resided in the county prior to
imprisonment and commitment.
The League of California Cities posted an article on its Web site
in 2005 entitled "What Cities Need to Know About Responding to
the Release of a Sexually Violent Predator." The article
provided a step-by-step guide to preparing for and opposing a
proposed placement. Paragraph No. 3 of the preparation plan for
dealing with a proposed SVP placement is entitled "Create a Legal
Strategy for Opposing the SVP Placement."
WILL PROHIBITING PLACEMENT OF A CONDITIONALLY RELEASED SVP PATIENT
WITHIN 35 MILES OF THE RESIDENCE OF A VICTIM MAKE AN ALREADY
DIFFICULT PROCESS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT, CONTROVERSIAL AND
CONTENTIOUS?
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageP
(More)
6. Continuous Sexual Abuse and Other Parole Placement Provisions
Existing law provides that where a victim or witness so
requests, a parolee who has been convicted of specified violent
crimes shall be placed at least 35 miles from the residence of
the victim. Continuous sexual abuse is not included in the list
of crimes subject to these placement restrictions. Continuous
sexual abuse involves three or more acts of lewd conduct or
specified sex crimes committed over at least three months by a
person who generally abused a position of trust or special
access to the child. There may be legitimate concerns that such
persons would seek to contact the victim when released from
prison. This bill would add continuous sexual abuse to the
crimes subject to the 35-mile placement limit.
This bill provides that where a violent sex offender is released
on parole to a county other than the county of his last legal
residence because of the 35-mile victim proximity rules, CDCR
can place another inmate in the county of the sex offender's
legal residence. Arguably, this could assist CDCR in keeping
the number of parolees in a county relatively equal to the
number of inmates sent to prison from that county.
WHERE A VICTIM OR WITNESS REQUESTS SUCH AN ORDER, SHOULD AN
INMATE CONVICTED OF CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD BE PLACED
ON PAROLE AT LEAST 35 MILES FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM OR
WITNESS?
WHERE CDCR MUST PLACE A VIOLENT PAROLEE (CONVICTED OF SPECIFIED
SEX CRIMES OR INFLICTION OF GREAT BODILY INJURY) OUTSIDE OF THE
COUNTY OF HIS OR HER RESIDENCE BECAUSE OF WITNESS PROXIMITY
RULES, SHOULD CDCR BE ALLOWED TO PLACE ANOTHER PAROLEE IN THE
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF THE VIOLENT OFFENDER?
***************
(More)
AB 1509 (Spitzer)
PageR