In this final draft, I was able to finally clarify nearly all of the claims that I had been making in the previous drafts. Rather than merely saying things that I had read about, I made sure to explain exactly what I was thinking so that the reader could be in the same perspective as myself. This also was reflected in my improved organization in this draft. I was able to move a few paragraphs around and include other things that clarified previous claims and allowed for my points to flow much better between paragraphs. I am very proud of my work in this project and the amount of work that I put into this.

Abstract:

The topic of my project is the pathway that eventually lead to 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 always ended up in the backseat as a possible solution to California’s problems. The state resorted to other practices to alleviate itself, such as its Realignment policy, which was started in 2011 through the passage of the AB 109 legislation and reduced the state prison population to the Court’s mandated level. But, county jail populations have soared, while many other bills, such as Proposition 47 and Proposition 36 have tried to address the incarcerated population of California. Despite this seemingly good news, it seems as though the overcrowding problem is merely being delayed, while the true solution - split sentencing - awaits its turn to become Savior of the State’s incarcerated population, taxpayers, and government officials. 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?  This paper demonstrates how split sentencing arose and became a valid option for criminal sentencing in California, as well as how it came to become a costly problem, even though it should be saving the State and its taxpayers’ money. This is demonstrated through research on county sentencing, California policies, and prison overcrowding. Finally, the paper points towards a likely solution to the State’s incarceration woes. 

Split Sentencing in California

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. She vocalizes her desire to stop using them, 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. Upon release from custody, convicts are enrolled in mandatory probation or rehabilitation classes to integrate them into society.  Yet, split sentencing did not miraculously appear as a solution for convicts and overcrowded jails. Its integration into the California criminal justice system has been a slow and painful one. 

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. Before the passage of  the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, federal sentencing was nonuniform and relied greatly on judicial discretion; often times judicial discretion would lead to unnecessary prison sentences. One of the provisions of the Act was to establish uniformity in sentencing through eliminating judicial discretion as much as possible, which was done through the Sentencing Table. Within this Table, alternative sentences were created that “established probation as a stand-alone sentencing option, rather than as an instrument used in suspending prison sentences” (United States Sentencing Commission, 2). Because probation was established as a punishment on its own, the sentencing committee also established a practice that allowed probation to serve as part of a prison sentence. Therefore, a two year sentence could be spent as one year actually incarcerated and another on probation. This allowed some unnecessary prison sentences to be split up into half time. Through the establishment of a uniform sentencing method, split sentencing became an acceptable punishment across the country, although not necessarily used very often. 

The practice of split sentencing began its harrowing journey in California through the statewide prison reform started by the Supreme Court case ruling in Brown v. Plata(2011). The class action civil rights cases of Coleman v. Brown(1995) and Plata v. Brown(2005), 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). Besides that, any new felons who are non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders must report to county jails. While this bill was supposed to help alleviate the state prison overcrowding, the changes haven’t been so kind. According to Christopher Petrella and Alex Friedmann,

As a result of Realignment, county jails now house prisoners sentenced to more than a year of incarceration – offenders who previously would have been sent to state prisons. Since the Realignment initiative was first implemented, California’s jail population has predictably grown; the average daily population in local jails has increased by at least 12% – roughly equivalent to 9,000 prisoners – following Realignment.

California’s problem has not been fully addressed; rather, it has merely been moved. And this moving of prisoners to jails, does not help taxpayers whatsoever. According to the LA Times Editorial Board:As state taxpayers, it is important to establish the most cost-effective incarceration system because of the high costs it imposes. Not only did Realignment fail to fix the overcrowding in California, but it also increased costs when it should have done the opposite. 

In another effort to reduce the incarcerated population, Californians approved Proposition 36 and Proposition 47. Proposition 36, which made substantial changes to the state’s Three Strikes Law, was passed in 2012. This revision mandated that, upon the “Third Strike”, the offender only be given a life sentence if this conviction is “serious or violent” so that more convicts could be removed from prisons sooner(Ballotpedia). Besides that, it also allowed for the resentencing of those currently in prison for a “Third Strike” that was not serious or violent. Proposition 47 was passed in 2014, 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).

Unfortunately, overcrowding is still a beast that has yet to bow its head. 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).

Such private facilities seemed to have been built on a whim, and have ended up costing the state $28.5 million a year in some cases! 

After repeated failures to truly eliminate the vast population in custody in California, the state finally looked at split sentencing as a cost effective solution. 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.” However, individual 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). Interestingly, the counties that  give less split sentences tend to send more felons to state prisons (See Image A). This is concerning, because, researchers Mike Males, Ph.D., and Lizzie Buchen, M.S., stated 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.

With the per capita cost of imprisonment already having increased by $15,000 in the last four years, (California’s Prison Spending is Out of Whack) and the transferral of overcrowding to the county jails while still sending prisoners to private facilities, split sentencing is the Savior waiting to be fully unleashed. According to Stanford University management professor, Lawrence M. Wein, increased use of split sentencing would lower jail populations by 20% and cut the recidivism rate by 7%. After the 2014 law requiring split sentences for those eligible, counties have begun to relieve their newly 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 (Image A - Note how high up on the list it was in 2012), 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%. If more counties followed suit, that $190 million in cost would be quickly reduced.

The practice of split sentencing has the potential to provide numerous benefits for the state of California as a whole as well as its individual counties in these tumultuous years since Realignment. As a practice that reduces time in custody, cuts recidivism rates, and reduces costs, split sentencing is a policy that offers a better method for the politician, the offender, and the taxpayer. It has proved its benefits through previous policies, and offers it again to California and its constituent counties.