Introduction

Craig Haney, Professor, University of California – Santa Cruz

Panel 1: Seeking Relief in Federal Court

Moderator: Michael Bien, Managing Partner - Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP

Panelists: Donald Specter, Barry Krisberg, Joyce Hayhoe

Synopsis: Two lawsuits (Plata v. Schwarzenegger and Coleman v. Schwarzenegger) have challenged the constitutionality of conditions in the California state prison system, alleging that the system violates the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide adequate medical and mental health care to inmates. In Plata the federal court appointed a Receiver to take control of the state’s prison medical services. In July 2007, under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a three-judge panel was appointed to determine if a population cap should be placed on California prisons.

Issues: The federal courts and remedying California’s prison crisis:

Discussion of the Plata and Coleman litigation
How does the passage of AB 900 affect the role of the federal courts

Panel 2: California’s Initiative: Assessing AB 900

Moderator: Suzanne Mounts, Professor - University of San Francisco School of Law

Panelists: Michael Bien, Michael Jacobson, Mike Jimenez, The Hon. Michael H. Marcus

Synposis: Under the recently enacted AB 900, California will build 53,000 new beds in existing prisons, in new prisons, and other facilities. In AB 900 the state legislature has attempted to link this huge prison construction budget to prison reform, providing that new beds constructed under the bill will be supported by rehabilitative programming for inmates while in prison, and reentry facilities and programs to ease the transition from prison to free life in the community. Some have lauded the passage of AB 900 as a bi-partisan meaningful response to a long-simmering problem. Others have suggested that the law is a political charade, designed to forestall action by the federal courts.

Issues: The Panel will address two issues regarding AB 900:

Prison expansion as prison reform: Will more beds solve the problems or merely add to them?
Are the rehabilitation and re-entry reforms in AB 900 adequate and can the CDCR properly implement these reforms?

Keynote Address

The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson

Unites States District Court Judge - The Northern District of California

Panel 3: Sentencing Reform

Moderator: The Hon. Michael H. Marcus, Circuit Judge - Multnomah County, Oregon

Panelists: Kara Dansky, Jeanne Woodford, Roger Warren, Marc Miller

Synopsis: California lacks a coherent criminal justice sentencing policy, and has had no system of accountability for the impact of sentencing laws on public safety and correctional resources. Enacted in the 1970’s, California’s Determinate Sentencing Act produced unintended consequences that many argue have reduced public safety and laid the groundwork for the current corrections overcrowding crisis. Some experts and state politicians have recommended that the creation of sentencing commissions will bring coherence and accountability into the corrections system.

Issues: The Panel will address the following issues regarding sentencing reform:

Will meaningful sentencing reform help alleviate the prison crisis?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a sentencing commission in California?
Should California overhaul the determinate sentencing law?

Panel 4: Parole Reform

Moderator: James Fox, District Attorney - San Mateo County

Panelists: James Austin, Jonathan Simon, Eileen Hirst, Thomas Hoffman

Synopsis: California has the highest state recidivism rate in the country - seventy percent of those released on parole are returned to the state prison system for violation of parole conditions. California’s parole system is rigidly uniform; regardless of the danger they present to society, all parolees are supervised for the same length of time and receive the same parole services. Many believe that the lack of an individualized parole supervision program virtually guarantees the very high parolee “return-to-prison” rates. Experts point particularly to the practice of sending most parole violators back to prison, even for relatively minor violations of parole conditions.

Issues: The Panel will address two issues regarding parole reform:

Is changing California’s parole system to a more individualized system a key to lowering the state’s staggering recidivism rate?
If so, how would such a modified parole system function?