Should CA Release 76K Inmates Early? Patch Readers Weigh In

CALIFORNIA — The Golden State could give 76,000 inmates — including violent and repeat felons — an opportunity to exit prison early if they exhibited "good conduct." The state hoped to further trim its prison population in what was once the nation's largest state correctional system.

That decision has drawn ire from 44 district attorneys across the state. They filed a civil lawsuit last week against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to stop the correction system from awarding "good conduct" credits to the 76,000 state prison inmates.

Patch asked readers to share their thoughts on this in a survey. The survey — which drew more than 7,043 responses — was not a scientific poll and was meant to offer only a broad idea of public sentiment.

Patch asked: "Do you think California should award 'good conduct' credits to 76,000 inmates, allowing them to be released early?"

• 82.2 percent of respondents answered a resounding "no."
• Only 10 percent answered "yes."
• 7.8 percent were unsure.

The department of corrections unveiled temporary emergency regulations on April 30 without public comment. The regulations allowed thousands of inmates convicted of violent crimes to become eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their prison sentences by one-third instead of the one-fifth that had been in place since 2017.

California has been under court orders to reduce its prison population, which peaked at 160,000 in 2006. Conditions became so crowded that some inmates were housed in gymnasiums and activity rooms. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 backed federal judges' requirement that the state reduce overcrowding.

More than 73 percent of Patch readers said California should not try to cut its inmate population; just 19.3 percent said it should.

The goal of the initiative was to "increase incentives for the incarcerated population to practice good behavior and follow the rules while serving their time, and participate in rehabilitative and educational programs, which will lead to safer prisons," department of corrections spokeswoman Dana Simas has said. "Additionally, these changes would help to reduce the prison population by allowing incarcerated persons to earn their way home sooner."

Patch asked: "Do you think prison inmates in CA should be given an opportunity to exit prison earlier by going through rehabilitation and exhibiting good behavior?"

• 49 percent answered "no."
• 32.5 percent said "yes."
• 18.5 percent were unsure.

Under the state's plan, more than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes would be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third. That includes some 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole.

The rules took effect earlier this month, but it could be months or years before any inmates go free earlier.

In the Patch survey, 81.2 percent said "no" when asked if some 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes should have this opportunity, even if they have exhibited good behavior while incarcerated. Just 10.1 percent said they should; 8.7 percent said they were unsure.

And 84.8 percent said that the near 20,000 inmates serving life sentences should not be given an opportunity to leave prison early. Some 7.3 percent said they should; 8 percent said they were unsure.

Under the change, more than 10,000 prisoners convicted of a second serious but nonviolent offense under the state's "three strikes" law will be eligible for release after serving half their sentences.

Patch asked: "Do you think this is fair?"

• More than 62 percent of respondents said "no."
• 22.1 percent said "yes."
• 15.6 percent said they were "not sure."

Patch also asked respondents to share their thoughts on how this plan could be revised.

Here were some of the responses.

"For minor, non-violent offenses, I think we should have an early-release program for good behavior and completed rehab, but not for criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes."

"Violent and inmates with repeated violations should not be included. Life sentences also not included."

"Should not release so many people at once, only the number of people who can be followed up safely."

"If they are in there for a serious violent crime (murder, rape, assault) they don’t deserve to have a chance at freedom. They took committed a terrible crime and should serve out their WHOLE SENTENCE. Not to say everyone in jail is a violent and Evil person, but the jails are there for a reason. To keep the bad guys locked up because of their actions and to keep the surrounding communities safe!"

"Some people are in prison due to other people's wrongdoings and they are the ones that take the heat everyone deserves a second chance ...everyone."

"No problem with early release of non violent crime offenders. Questionable on 2nd offenders on non violent individuals. NO on early release with violent offenders, especially if they have not had appropriate rehabilitation."

Patch also asked participants to share any additional thoughts on the possible early release of inmates or the civil lawsuit that has been filed against it.

Here were some of those responses.

"They’re in prison for a reason. If they are served with life sentences. That’s what they should do. No award for good behavior should be allowed for inmates who cause a threat to society and not to mention the pain they have caused victims and their families."

"We need to take a gradual, measured approach, starting with the lowest-risk inmates. If significant recidivism occurs, the early release problem needs to be deemed a failure."

"I support the lawsuit."

"I believe in providing rehabilitation and employment training opportunities to exit prison with the potential to be a useful citizen, but anyone whose crime was bad enough to get them "life," probably deserves to stay there."

"I believe in restorative justice and rehabilitation of criminals, [which] includes finding jobs for them. I just cut sentences in half because there’s overcrowding in the prison system is ridiculous and dangerous."

The district attorneys' lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, asked the court to declare the temporary emergency regulations unlawful and to prohibit the department of corrections from awarding the additional credits until it "lawfully complies with the regulatory scheme, which includes a transparent and rigorous period for public comment," according to Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin, who was one of the DAs to file suit.

"Releasing dangerous and violent felons into our communities by reducing their sentences by as much as 50 percent puts the public in danger," Hestrin said. "Victims and their families deserve to be heard on how these regulations might affect them and public safety in general."

The state agency "will review the details of the lawsuit once we are served and continue to work with our partners to promote rehabilitation and accountability in a manner consistent with public safety," department spokeswoman Vicky Waters said.

READ MORE: Early Release Of 76K California Inmates: Civil Lawsuit

City News Service and Patch staffers Toni McAllister and Kat Schuster contributed to this report.