Skip to content
Subscribe

Crime Victims United challenges early release bill in court

Published:

California's new early release program, authorized by Senate Bill 18, will result in the early release of over 6,000 prison inmates classified as "low-risk" offenders. Proponents argue that the new program will save the state hundreds of millions, but it still raises the perennial question when it comes to the state's prison policy: how safe is safe enough for Californians?

Crime Victims United, an advocacy group for the victims of violent crime, has filed a lawsuit against both the governor and the California Department of Corrections, arguing that the early release program is unconstitutional.

In 2008, voters passed Proposition 9, a victims bill of rights also referred to as "Marsy's Law," which amended California's constitution to prohibit the early release of inmates by legislative or executive order to alleviate prison overcrowding. So under California's constitution, a court's sentencing cannot be "substantially diminished" by public policymakers.

Opponents of the new early release program also say it is just bad public policy. Nina Salarno, of Crime Victims United of California, disagrees with the state's classification of "low-risk" offenders: "Domestic abuse is considered non-violent, child abuse, elder abuse- physical child abuse, is considered non-violent. Manslaughter is considered non-violent in the state of California."

It's not hard to see why some Californians just don't feel safe with the new early release program, barely a month after John Gardner raped and murdered 17 year old Chelsea King because he was out on parole. Despite seven parole violations and a predatory past (he was originally incarcerated for assaulting a 13 year old girl), Gardner was released onto San Diego's streets where he committed more violent crime.

But proponents of California's early release program believe it takes the necessary precautions to keep residents safe. The California Department of Corrections told News 8 that "inmates will have to earn an early release by completing  rehabilitation program that  reduce sentences up to six weeks a year. They say fewer inmates means more resources to watch violent parolees." The department seems to suggest that the program will actually help save the state money and make Californians more safe.

Is the new early release bill constitutional? Will it actually make California more safe? Or is the state gambling with innocent lives to save money?

What do you think?

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Crime Victims United challenges early release bill in court

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us