Ab 212 - Family Visits

Bob-bi-lu · #1 02-02-2005, 07:23 PM

BILL NUMBER: AB 212 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member DeVore

JANUARY 31, 2005

An act to add Section 6401 to the Penal Code, relating to prisons.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 212, as introduced, DeVore. Prisons: family visits.
Existing law requires any amendments to existing regulations of
the Department of Corrections that impact the visitation of inmates
to recognize and consider the value of visiting. Existing regulations
prohibit overnight family visits for any inmate convicted of a
violent offense involving a minor or family member, as defined.
This bill would prohibit any inmate who is incarcerated for a
violent felony, as defined, from being eligible for an overnight
family visit. The bill would require the department to revise its
regulations to comport with this prohibition by March 1, 2006.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 6401 is added to the Penal Code , to read:
6401. (a) An inmate who is incarcerated for a violent felony, as
defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, is not eligible for an
overnight family visit.(b) The Department of Corrections shall revise
its regulations to comport with this section by March 1, 2006.

** I Believe it will be heard on March 4th. **

RPinSD · #2 02-02-2005, 08:21 PM

Well that just sucks!

I'm not sure what's harder right now to read this mean spirited proposed law or to listen to GWB's State of the Union Speech.

I don't think this will ever make it into law it's just mean and short sided.
But I said the same thing about the patriot act so I'm not batting so good latley.

jessica23 · #3 02-02-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob-bi-lu

Existing law requires any amendments to existing regulations of
the Department of Corrections that impact the visitation of inmates
to recognize and consider the value of visiting.

I'm confused. Isn't this bill in total oppostion to that? What is the point and what is the benefit? I swear it's something new everyday.

So what can be done to oppose it? I'm fairly new at this activist thing but I'll write, call, and email to oppose this if someone could point me in the right direction.

Jessica

JaimeeLynn · #4 02-02-2005, 09:19 PM

I'm confused...isn't this what happened to us when they took the Family Visits away from lifers in 1996? Thought that when they took away FV's in 1996 that it already WAS a bill...can somebody clarify?

Cheetoes1 · #5 02-02-2005, 09:51 PM

This totally sucks !! I am just sick!! What's going to happen is there will be new felonies added on with this new bill, like burglary!! It's insaine!! And it can pass, because it reads like the old bill!!

KellyA.

667.5. Enhancement of prison terms for new offenses because of
prior prison terms shall be imposed as follows:
(a) Where one of the new offenses is one of the violent felonies
specified in subdivision (c), in addition to and consecutive to any
other prison terms therefor, the court shall impose a three-year term
for each prior separate prison term served by the defendant where
the prior offense was one of the violent felonies specified in
subdivision (c). However, no additional term shall be imposed under
this subdivision for any prison term served prior to a period of 10
years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and
the commission of an offense which results in a felony conviction.
(b) Except where subdivision (a) applies, where the new offense is
any felony for which a prison sentence is imposed, in addition and
consecutive to any other prison terms therefor, the court shall
impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term served for
any felony; provided that no additional term shall be imposed under
this subdivision for any prison term served prior to a period of five
years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody
and the commission of an offense which results in a felony
conviction.
(c) For the purpose of this section, "violent felony" shall mean
any of the following:
(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
(2) Mayhem.
(3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
262.
(4) Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of
immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.

(5) Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of
immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another
person.
(6) Lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years as defined in
Section 288.
(7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life.
(8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury
on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and
proved as provided for in Section 12022.7 or 12022.9 on or after July
1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in Sections 213,
264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm
which use has been charged and proved as provided in Section 12022.5
or 12022.55.
(9) Any robbery.
(10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.

(11) The offense defined in subdivision (a) of Section 289 where
the act is accomplished against the victim's will by force, violence,
duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on
the victim or another person.
(12) Attempted murder.
(13) A violation of Section 12308, 12309, or 12310.
(14) Kidnapping.
(15) Assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or
oral copulation, in violation of Section 220.
(16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section
288.5.
(17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.
(18) A violation of Section 264.1.
(19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute
a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.
(20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1,
which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22 of the
Penal Code.
(21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision
(a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another
person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during
the commission of the burglary.
(22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.
(23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418.
The Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes
merit special consideration when imposing a sentence to display
society's condemnation for these extraordinary crimes of violence
against the person.

Cheetoes1 · #6 02-02-2005, 10:02 PM

Here is the web address you can post your comment to the beast via email.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/legco...&author=devore

KellyA.

jessica23 · #7 02-02-2005, 10:40 PM

Thank you for the link, Kelly. This has me so depressed, I feel like crying. Not because we even have family visits, but just because it feels like every day it's some new fight just to keep what we already have, never mind making things better.... UGH.

Jessica

Latinlove · #8 02-02-2005, 11:01 PM

So if this law does passes and it has to go thru commitees who is left for family visits?
I wouldnt doubt if the author was paid to write this up. And their answer like always budget. This state is going down hill and nothing Arnold can fix anymore. Not unless he has a magic wand!!!
So when this goes to the next level we have to write letters and oppose it. This affects all of us. As a Prison Community we have to get involved. And can't let me do this to us.

jessica23 · #9 02-03-2005, 12:14 AM

Latinlove, I totally agree. I hope we can all get together on some of these issues and not think "Oh well, it doesn't affect me, so who cares?"

I need some idea of how to start taking action, so anyone with pointers is welcome to PM me and let me know how to go about it!

Jessica

JaimeeLynn · #10 02-03-2005, 10:58 AM

So, as it looks right now....they are just trying to simply do away with ALL Family Visits for EVERYONE. With that list, no one is left! I think I'm going to post this on another group I belong to to see if anyone has a legal perspective.

RPinSD · #11 02-03-2005, 11:48 AM

Kelly

Thank you for the link to make comments, you can bet I will be writing in opposition to this tragic mess of a bill. This just punishes the families of the inmates in question and in my opinion is a piece of S*%t legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetoes1

Here is the web address you can post your comment to the beast via email.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/legco...&author=devore

KellyA.

thekilgorebunch · #12 02-03-2005, 11:51 AM

I don't get family visits because we aren't legally married yet. Even though that is in our future, but I don't see the reasoning behind taking them away from everyone. What about the children? Don't you think they deserve the right to see thier parents? This is rediculous and I am so upset about this.

Mrs.L · #13 02-03-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaimeeLynn

I'm confused...isn't this what happened to us when they took the Family Visits away from lifers in 1996? Thought that when they took away FV's in 1996 that it already WAS a bill...can somebody clarify?

This would specifically target 1st and 2nd strikers!

qwerty · #14 02-03-2005, 12:23 PM

This makes me sick... one side is talking about the wonderful new focus on rehabilitation and the other side just does all it can to destroy family ties and yet another incentive for inmates to keep their records clean.

Grrrrrrr!

JaimeeLynn · #15 02-03-2005, 12:26 PM

Well, I, personally, fell victim to this kind of legislation in 1996 when they took them away from lifers. But, in reading through the list of who constitutes a "violent offender" in THEIR terms, it pretty much includes everyone.

My BIGGEST realization was: when they took them away from lifers, their excuse was budget, of course, as well as the contraband that was being brought in. If you look on that list of offenders....DRUG offenses are NOT included!!! Now tell me, if you are in prison for a drug offense, don't you think the chances of finding drugs in prison is likely? Don't you think that some of those drug offenders would TRY to bring in contraband? If they are going to do it, they might as well just include everyone at this point.

My wheels are spinning...I am certainly going to write Assemblyman Devore on this! We need to put a hault to this kind of crap!