Professor Collins had us make a Timeline of five significant events that directly affected our topic and gave it historical perspective. This exercise helped my project really get going, as I was able to see how my project flowed from one point of information to another. It also helped me realize that I needed more information to fill in the gaps in time, so it pushed me to do more research. Finally, because we needed to have justification for each source, I was able to evaluate each source and whether or not it truly helped my project.

Timeline:

Date: 1984 - Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. In this Act, the Federal Government created a series of punishments that established punishments that did not exclusively involve incarceration. It established four zones distinguishing levels of punishment that described applicable punishments for each zone. This act established the practice of probation as a solitary punishment without confinement as well as the practice of split sentencing, allowing the individual to serve at least half of the mandated sentence, and then serving the rest on supervised release with a condition or a combination of conditions that substitute community confinement or house arrest.
Justification: This act establishes the practice of split sentencing as an appropriate sentence in the United States. By establishing this punishment on the federal level, the individual states are allowed to utilize it as a possible punishment as well; this ties into the practice of split sentencing in California.
United States Sentencing Commission. Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System. United States Sentencing Commission. May 2015. PDF file.
<http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/alternatives/20150617_Alternatives.pdf>

Date: 1990 - 2011 - Brown v. Plata In 1990, Coleman v. Brown, a federal class action civil rights lawsuit against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was filed. Later in 2001, Plata v. Brown, another federal class action civil rights lawsuit was filed against the CDCR. Both were decided that the CDCR was violating the 8th amendment and it was decided that it must provide better care for the inmate-patients within their care. After failure to comply, a three judge court ordered that a prison reduction plan be submitted. After a California appeal to the Supreme Court, the same decision was upheld and California was forced to reduce its state prison population.
Justification: This collection of cases started the California plan to reduce its prison population through changes in public policy and changes in sentencing. One of the largest changes in sentencing was the introduction of split sentencing, where inmates serve part of their sentence in prison and another part on parole or supervision outside the facility, where they are required to be part of rehabilitation programs and other programs to integrate them back into society. Split sentencing became integral to reducing the population of prisons through serving time on supervision outside the facilities. Because of the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Supreme Court was able to recommend that California reduce the prison population through other methods besides simple releases. The Act also allowed California to utilize the split sentencing method of punishment.
Liptak, Adam. "Justices, 5-4, Tell California to Cut Prisoner Population." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 May 2011. Web. 03 July 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24scotus.html?_r=0>.

Date: April 2011 -The California Legislature and Governor Brown pass Assembly Bill 109, which established the California Public Safety Alignment Act of 2011, which allows for the transfer of responsibility of criminals from the state to the county level. Under this provision, individuals sentenced to non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenses must serve time at the county level rather than the state. This also allows for non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenders to be supervised by the county probation department rather than the state parole department upon their release.
Justification: This act is important to Californian split sentencing because it changed the way that split sentencing worked within the state. Before the act, those within state prisons had to spend the supervised part of their sentence under exclusively the parole office, while those in county had to be supervised by the probation office. This act allowed for the non-serious, non-violent or non-sex offenders at the state level to be supervised by the county level, increasing the flexibility and frequency of split sentencing. This act was a direct response to the Supreme Court mandate in Brown v. Plata to reduce the prison population. By transferring the population to the county prisons, the state is following the mandate to reduce state prison population.
"What Is AB 109?" Lacounty.gov. County of Los Angeles Probation Department, n.d. Web. 2 July 2016. <http://probation.lacounty.gov/wps/portal/probation/!ut/p/b0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOLdDAwM3P2dgo3cvX2NDBwNHD0d_T3DDE3cTfULsh0VAXzjOO8!/>.

Date: 2012, California Proposition 36 passed. This bill reduced the severity of the state’s third strike law, deciding that the third strike had to be a serious or violent felony. This allowed for prisoners who were already serving time under a third strike that was nonserious or nonviolent to petition the court for resentencing. The bill also maintains the life sentence for those convicted of previous serious or violent crimes.
Justification: This measure reduced the number of life sentences the prisons had as well as reduce the overall number of prisoners. Because the prison sentence is reduced, the possibility for split sentences increases and more prisoners are transferred to county jails or put on supervision.
"California Proposition 36, Changes in the "Three Strikes" Law (2012)- Ballotpedia." Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia, n.d. Web. 04 July 2016.
<https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Changes_in_the_%22Three_Strikes%22_Law_(2012)>

Date: 2014, California Proposition 47 passed. This bill reclassified some nonviolent, nonserious crimes as misdemeanors rather that felonies unless the individual has a history of previous convictions for serious or violent crimes such as murder or rape. This bill’s highlight was the change of personal use of illegal drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor, which had the most reducing power in terms of the drop in jail population.
Justification: This proposition altered the length split sentences, because many short term split sentences were changed to misdemeanors. This, caused more inmates to serve the majority of their sentences, because the prisons became less crowded. In LA county, this caused an increase in the push for split sentencing to reduce the county jail numbers. The county had more jurisdiction given to it under AB 109, therefore split sentencing reduces the number of inmates that serve their full sentences in county jail.
"California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014) - Ballotpedia." Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia, n.d. Web. 04 July 2016. <https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)>.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/09/opinion/la-ed-split-sentences-california-realignment-20140209