BACKGROUND
Definition of Sex Offenses. Sex offenses are crimes
of a sexual nature. They vary in type and can be
misdemeanors or felonies. For example, distribution of
obscene material is a misdemeanor and rape is a felony
sex offense. Felony offenses are more serious crimes
than misdemeanors.
Punishment for Committing Sex Offenses. Current
law defines the penalties for conviction of sex-related
crimes. The punishment depends primarily on the type
and severity of the specific offense. Conviction of a
misdemeanor sex offense is punishable by up to a year
in county jail, probation, fines, or a combination of the
three. Conviction of a felony sex offense can result in
the same penalties as a misdemeanor or a sentence to
state prison for up to a life term. The penalty assigned
by the court for a felony conviction depends on the
specific crime committed, as well as other factors such as
the specific circumstances of the offense and the criminal
history of the offender. There are about 8,000 persons
convicted of a felony sex offense in California each year.
Of these, about 39 percent are sent to state prison. Most
of the rest are supervised on probation in the community
(5 percent), sentenced to county jail (1 percent), or both
(53 percent).
Sex Offender Registration, Residency
Requirements, and Monitoring. Current law
requires offenders convicted of specified felony or
misdemeanor sex crimes to register with local law
enforcement officials. There are approximately 90,000
registered sex offenders in California.
Current law bars parolees convicted of specified sex
offenses against a child from residing within one-quarter
or one-half mile (1,320 or 2,640 feet, respectively)
of a school. The longer distance is for those parolees
identified as high risk to reoffend by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
The CDCR utilizes Global Positioning System
(GPS) monitoring devices to track the location of some
sex offenders on parole. Currently, this monitoring
is limited to about 1,000 sex offenders who have
been identified as high risk to reoffend. Some county
probation departments also use GPS to monitor some
sex offenders on probation.
Sexually Violent Predators (SVP). Specified sex
offenders who are completing their prison sentences are
referred by CDCR to the Department of Mental Health
(DMH) for screening and evaluation to determine
whether they meet the criteria for an SVP. Under current
law, an SVP is defined as “a person who has been
convicted of a sexually violent offense against two or
more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder
that makes the person a danger to the health and safety
of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage
in sexually violent criminal behavior.” Those offenders
who are found to meet the criteria are referred to district
attorneys. District attorneys then determine whether to
pursue their commitment by the courts to treatment in a
state mental hospital as an SVP.
Offenders subject to SVP proceedings are often
represented by public defenders. While these court
proceedings are pending, offenders who have not
completed their prison sentences continue to be held
in prison. However, if an offender’s prison sentence
has been completed, he or she may be held either in
county custody or in a state mental hospital. Offenders
designated as SVPs by the courts are committed to a
state mental hospital for up to two years. An offender
can be recommitted by the courts in subsequent court
proceedings.
As noted above, state mental hospitals hold sex
offenders who have been committed as SVPs. State
mental hospitals also hold some sex offenders who have
completed their prison sentences, but are still undergoing
SVP evaluations or commitment proceedings. As of
June 2006, 456 sex offenders were being held in state
hospitals with a commitment by a court as an SVP. In
addition, 188 sex offenders were being held in state
mental hospitals, and 81 were in county custody pending
the completion of commitment proceedings.
PROPOSAL
Increase Penalties for Sex Offenses. This measure
increases the penalties for specified sex offenses. It does
this in several ways. In some cases:
- It broadens the definition of certain sex offenses.
For example, the measure expands the definition
of aggravated sexual assault of a child to include
offenders who are at least seven years older than
the victim, rather than the ten years required under
current law.
- It provides for longer penalties for specified sex
offenses. For example, it expands the list of crimes that
qualify for life sentences in prison to include assault to
commit rape during the commission of a first degree
burglary.
- It prohibits probation in lieu of prison for some sex
offenses, including spousal rape and lewd or lascivious
acts.
- It eliminates early release credits for some inmates
convicted of certain sex offenses (for example,
habitual sex offenders who have multiple convictions
for specified felony sex offenses such as rape).
- It extends parole for specified sex offenders,
including habitual sex offenders.
These changes would result in longer prison and
parole terms for the affected offenders.
Finally, this measure increases court-imposed fees
currently charged to offenders who are required to
register as sex offenders.
Require GPS Devices for Registered Sex Offenders. Generally under this measure, individuals who have been
convicted of a felony sex offense that requires registration
and have been sent to prison would be monitored by GPS
devices while on parole and for the remainder of their
lives.
The CDCR would be authorized to collect fees
from affected sex offenders to cover the costs of
GPS monitoring. The amount of fees collected from
individual offenders would vary depending on their
ability to pay.
Limit Where Registered Sex Offenders May Live. This measure bars any person required to register as a
sex offender from living within 2,000 feet (about two-fifths of a mile) of any school or park. A violation of this
provision would be a misdemeanor offense, as well as
a parole violation for parolees. The longer current law
restriction of one-half mile (2,640 feet) for specified
high-risk sex offenders on parole would remain in effect.
In addition, the measure authorizes local governments
to further expand these residency restrictions.
Change SVP Law. This measure generally makes
more sex offenders eligible for an SVP commitment. It
does this by (1) reducing from two to one the number
of prior victims of sexually violent offenses that qualify
an offender for an SVP commitment and (2) making
additional prior offenses—such as certain crimes
committed by a person while a juvenile—“countable”
for purposes of an SVP commitment. The measure
also requires that SVPs be committed by the court to
a state mental hospital for an undetermined period of
time rather than the renewable two-year commitment
provided for under existing law. As under current law,
once an offender had received a commitment as an SVP,
he or she could later be released from a state hospital by
the courts if (1) DMH determined the individual should
no longer be held or (2) the offender successfully
petitioned a court for release.
The measure also changes the standard for release
of SVPs from a state mental hospital. For example,
current law generally requires DMH to examine the
mental condition of a sex offender each year. This
measure specifically requires DMH, as part of this
annual review, to examine whether a person being held
in a state hospital as an SVP still meets the definition
of an SVP, whether release is in the best interest of the
person, and whether conditions could be imposed at time
of release that would adequately protect the community.
The impact of these changes on the number of SVPs is
unknown.
FISCAL EFFECTS
This measure would have a number of significant
fiscal effects on state and local agencies. The major
fiscal effects are discussed below.
State Prison Costs. This measure would increase the
prison population, resulting in a significant increase
in prison operating costs. In particular, increasing
sentences for sex offenders would result in some
sex offenders being sentenced to and remaining in
prison for longer periods, resulting in a larger prison
population over time. This would result in costs of
unknown magnitude, but likely to be in the tens of
millions of dollars annually once fully implemented in
less than ten years. It is also possible that this measure
could eventually result in significant additional capital
outlay costs to accommodate the increase in the inmate
population.
The impact on the prison population of requiring sex
offenders to wear GPS devices is unclear. On the one
hand, GPS monitoring could increase the number of
offenders who are identified and returned to prison for
violating the conditions of their parole or committing
new crimes. On the other hand, GPS monitoring could
act as a deterrent for some offenders from committing
new violations or crimes, hence reducing the likelihood
that they return to prison. Whatever net impact GPS does
have on returns to prison will also affect parole, court,
and local law enforcement workloads and associated
costs.
State Parole and GPS Monitoring Costs. The
initiative’s provisions requiring specified registered sex
offenders to wear GPS devices while on parole and for the
remainder of their lives would result in additional costs
for GPS equipment, as well as for supervision staff to
track offenders in the community. These costs are likely
to be in the several tens of millions of dollars annually
within a few years. These costs would grow to about $100
million annually after ten years, with costs continuing to
increase significantly in subsequent years.
Because the measure does not specify whether the
state or local governments would be responsible for
monitoring sex offenders who have been discharged
from state parole supervision, it is unclear whether local
governments would bear some of these long-term costs.
These costs likely would be partially offset by several
million dollars annually in court and parolee fees
authorized by the measure, though the exact amount
would largely depend on offenders’ ability to pay.
State SVP Program Costs. By making more sex
offenders eligible for SVP commitments, this measure
would result in increased state costs generally in the
following categories:
- Referral and Commitment Costs. These costs are
mainly associated with screening sex offenders
referred by CDCR to DMH to determine if they
merit a full evaluation, performing such evaluations,
and providing expert testimony at court commitment
hearings. This measure would increase these state
costs probably by the low tens of millions of dollars
annually. These costs would begin to occur in the
initial year of implementation.
- State Hospital Costs. State costs to staff, maintain,
and operate the mental hospitals could reach
$100 million annually within a decade and would
continue to grow significantly thereafter. These costs
would result from additional SVP commitments
to state mental hospitals, as well as holding some
sex offenders—who have completed their prison
sentences—in state mental hospitals while they are
being evaluated to determine whether they should
receive an SVP commitment. (Some of the sex
offenders undergoing evaluation as SVPs might also
be held in county jails.)
Additional SVP commitments could eventually
result in one-time capital outlay costs of up to
several hundred million dollars for the construction
of additional state hospital beds.
The additional operational and capital outlay costs
would be partly offset in the long term. This is
because the longer prison sentences for certain sex
crimes required by this measure would delay SVP
referrals and commitments to state mental hospitals.
These costs would also be partly offset because the
change from two-year commitments to commitments
for an undetermined period of time is likely to
reduce DMH’s costs for SVP evaluations and court
testimony. However, our analysis indicates that on
balance the operating and capital outlay costs to the
state are likely to be substantially greater than the
savings.
Court and Jail Fiscal Impacts. This measure would
also affect state and local costs associated with court
and jail operations. For example, the additional SVP
commitment petitions resulting from this measure
would increase court costs for hearing these civil cases.
Also, county jail operating costs would increase to the
extent that offenders who have court decisions pending
on their SVP cases were held in county jail facilities.
The provision making it unlawful for sex offenders to
reside within 2,000 feet of a school or park could result
in additional court and jail costs to prosecute violations
of this provision.
Other provisions of this measure could result
in savings for court and jail operations. The
measure’s provisions providing for the indeterminate
commitment of SVPs, instead of the current two-year
recommitment process, would reduce county costs
for SVP commitment proceedings. Provisions of this
measure would increase the length of time that some
sex offenders spend in prison or mental hospitals. To
the extent that this occurs, these offenders would likely
commit fewer crimes in the community, resulting in
some court and local criminal justice savings.
Given the potential for the factors identified above to
offset each other, the net fiscal impact of this measure
on state and local costs for the court and jail operations
cannot be determined at this time.
Other Impacts on State and Local Governments. There could be other savings to the extent that offenders
imprisoned for longer periods require fewer government
services, or commit fewer crimes that result in victim-related government costs. Alternatively, there could be
an offsetting loss of revenue to the extent that offenders
serving longer prison terms would have become
taxpaying citizens under current law. The extent and
magnitude of these impacts is unknown.
|
