This draft was also used for the Peer Editing Workshop. This draft was required to be double the length of the previous draft, which required me to do ample research and make sure I fully explained my points. After receiving comments on my first draft from Professor Collins, I was able to fix a few things that helped with the clarity of the project, but I still had a lot of issues with explanations and clarity. One of the most notable things that I fixed in this draft was the multi-modality aspect. Thanks to the peer reviewing and Professor's additional comments, I was able to learn a lot and fix many problems.

The topic of my project is the practice of split sentencing in California. Since the establishment of split sentencing as an acceptable punishment in the United States in 1984, and the Supreme Court’s mandate for California to reduce its state prison population in 2011, split sentencing has had a varying degree of use across the state, as some counties utilize it in nearly every eligible case and others almost never use it. Through the state’s Realignment policy started in 2011 through the passage of the AB 109 legislation, the state prison population has decreased to the Court’s mandated levels, but county jail populations have soared, and many new bills, such as Proposition 47 and Proposition 36 have reduced the severity of many punishments across the state and reduced the punishment of many defendants in the courtrooms and jails across the state. Despite this seemingly good news, taxpayer dollars are still being used arbitrarily across the state, where the cost of state imprisonments in some counties can cost nearly 10 times more than for other counties. Because of this, counties that tend to have higher rates of split sentencing and less sentences to state prisons are subsidizing those counties that have lower rates of split sentencing and more sentences to state prisons. What effect has split sentencing had on the reduction of California’s state prison population? How has the practice of split sentencing affected county jails? How did such disparity in split sentences across the counties come to be and what changes are available to right the state’s custody system? This project gives the historical overview of split sentencing in California, brings the various problematic uses of this system today to light, and makes some suggestions for the reform of the system.

Introduction:
As the detective searches every corner and square inch of the Riverside County home, the woman sits and calmly watches T.V. Upon her release from jail, she was given the freedom to return to her home and regular life –with a catch. Under the Split Sentencing practice, the woman is not required to spend the entirety of her sentence in custody; rather, she spends a portion behind bars and then the rest under supervision and programs for integration back into society. Probation officers regularly search her house and belongings for any illegal substances. She is very transparent with her officer, even admitting to doing meth a few days ago, although they cannot convict her of that. She is warned about the consequences of continuing to use illegal drugs –first a rehab program, and then back to jail. Her desire to stop using them is well heard, and, if she does, split sentencing will have accomplished its goal –to reduce the jail populations through earlier releases and reduced rates of rearrest. Supporters of split sentencing cite reduced recidivism through helping ex-convicts adjust to life after jail, especially those with mental health or substance abuse issues. According to Stanford University management professor, Lawrence M. Wein, split sentencing would lower jail populations by 20% and cut the recidivism rate by 7%. However, county usage of split sentencing has enormous gaps between them. Whereas Contra Costa County uses split sentencing in 86% of their cases, Los Angeles County uses it in only 5% of theirs (Goldstein 1). Those counties that used split sentencing more also tended to send their felons to state prison less frequently. This has lead to split sentencing becoming a nonuniform and costly problem for the state of California. Researchers Mike Males, Ph.D., and Lizzie Buchen, M.S., state that:
the 17 counties that sent their felons to prison at a higher rate than the state average [including LA county] cost state taxpayers nearly $190 million more in 2012 than they would have if they had imprisoned their felons at the statewide rate. Conversely, the 41 counties that imprisoned their felony arrestees at a rate below the state average [including Contra Costa county] saved state taxpayers nearly $190 million in 2012 than if they used imprisonment at the state average.
Split sentencing, where a convict is able to serve up to half their sentence outside a prison, is not an old, tried and true process that has withstood the test of time, especially in California. Beginning with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Federal government created alternative sentences that “established probation as a stand-alone sentencing option, rather than as an instrument used in suspending prison sentences”(United States Sentencing Commission, 2). Before the passage of this act, federal sentencing was nonuniform and relied greatly on judicial discretion; this also went hand in hand with unnecessary prison sentences. Through the establishment of a uniform sentencing method, many were able to obtain the benefits of split sentencing.
The practice of split sentencing reached California through its prison reform in the Supreme Court case ruling in Brown v. Plata. The class action civil rights cases of Coleman v. Brown and Plata v. Brown, were both suing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for breaches of the 8th Amendment of the United States because of the poor conditions in California State prisons. Both cases were recommended to the same special three judge court in order to decide the final outcome of the case. This court decided that California had to reduce its prison population in order to provide better care for its inmates, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision in Brown v. Plata (2011). Forced to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision, the State of California became creative with prison reform.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, in April of 2011, the California Legislature and Governor Brown passed Assembly Bill 109 (also known as Realignment), which “effectively shifted responsibility for certain populations of offenders from the state to the counties”(County of Los Angeles Probation Department). Most notably, was that after serving time in the state prisons, “current non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders...are to report to local county probation officers”rather than to the state parole officers (County of Los Angeles Probation Department). In this way, the practice of split sentencing for a small population in California was altered in such a way to give the county jails more responsibilities.
In 2012, Californians approved Proposition 36, which made substantial changes to the state’s Three Strikes Law. This revision mandated that, upon the “Third Strike” the offender only be given a life sentence if this conviction is “serious or violent”(Ballotpedia). Besides that, it also allowed for the resentencing of those currently in prison for a “Third Strike”that was not serious or violent. In doing this, California took another measure towards reducing its prison population. In combination with the measures taken with Realignment in 2011, this bill allows for many more felons to take advantage of split sentencing, because both pieces of legislation possess the “nonserious or nonviolent”clause. Following Proposition 36, Californians came back with Proposition 47, which reduced the classification of most nonserious and nonviolent property and drug crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor (Ballotpedia). Under this bill, not only would even less people be convicted in the future for felonies, but as many as 1 million already convicted were eligible to change their records. The aftermath of this proposition was hardly ignorable, as Los Angeles County jail saw its inmate population fall “from 18,601 in November to 17,285 in January 2015”(Ballotpedia). Besides that, the overall state prison population has dropped below the Supreme Court mandated levels. Yet, if these bills have seemingly accomplished the issue of prison overcrowding, how is the issue of split sentencing still relevant? Because, as Jessica Eaglin explains:
California still has a long way to go to successfully get its incarcerated population under control. The state continues to send almost 9,000 prisoners out of state in order to comply with the court’s mandate. California increasingly relies on private and public facilities –including by sending 2,000 prisoners to a private facility in the state. The state will spend $12 billion on incarceration this year while trying to accommodate the court’s federal order....On the jails side, the population may creep back up as inmates previously being released early due to overcrowding are now serving as much as 100 percent of their sentences (Eaglin 1).
California’s incarcerated population is still costing the state and its taxpayers too much. Besides that, according to Christopher Petrella in Prison Legal News, “the egregious conditions that first led to legal intervention against the state’s prison system –overcrowding, poor medical and dental care, and inadequate mental health treatment –are now being repeated at the county level.”The counties that send more felons to state prisons also tend to give less split sentences; these counties are increasing costs of the state as a whole. California has taken measures to amend this, as the California Budget and Policy Center notes,“Since 2014, California law has required a split sentence for people convicted of nonviolent, nonserious, nonsexual offense, unless the court finds that such a sentence would not be in the interest of justice.”This establishment of some uniformity has helped counties relieve their overcrowded jails as well as the state prison population. For example, Riverside County, which has had a higher rate of sentencing its arrestees to state prison than most counties, has seen its rate dip in recent years because of its increased rate of split sentencing. In fact, Riverside county now boasts an 80% split sentencing rate as it has seen its state prison incarceration rate drop 21%.