In December 2016, San Quentin News published the front-page story “Proposition 57 passed…what now?” It took some time, but now that question has been answered by California’s Appellate Court.

Regulations on how the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation believed it could award credits to prisoners serving life sentences — with the possibility of parole — has been “remanded with directions” back to the superior court. For many who are incarcerated, the July 28 ruling left them with a foreboding feeling; one of forlorn hope.

Proposition 57 was intended to enhance public safety by prioritizing rehabilitation over lengthy incarceration. The ballot initiative was passed by voters to reduce the state’s overcrowded prisons and cut the high costs associated with incarceration. The initiative’s language did not require legislative approval, so no anticipatory changes were made to the state’s Penal Code, which the Court of Appeals recognized.

The Court wrote, in part: “We hold that (1) Proposition 57 properly removed statutory restrains on the [CDCR’s] authority to award credits, allowing the regulations to supersede contrary statutes; and (2) the [CDCR] may use credits to advance indeterminately sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates, only if permitted by existing law because both the plain language and ballot materials of Proposition 57 are silent on this issue. The matter is remanded, and the trial court is directed to modify the writ of mandate and enter a modified judgment.”

One main focus of Prop 57 was on nonviolent offenders. The initiative was to provide them with opportunities for earlier parole consideration if they were deemed fit. The CDCR is the organization tasked with the responsibility of safety and security over incarcerated individuals, in addition to its mission of rehabilitation. Therefore, it should have the authority and discretion to apply rehabilitative credits deemed. Of course, there is statutory law that precludes the CDCR from overstepping its authority.

“Credits could not be used to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ (Lifers) minimum eligible parole dates, to the extent of any conflict with existing law, because Prop. 57 did not address that issue and therefore did not replace the existing law, Pen. Code, § 3046, subd. (a), requiring that such inmates serve any minimum term established pursuant to other law,” the Court wrote.

Prop 57’s implementation by the CDCR’s Regulation and Policy Management Branch may seem by some as a half-hearted attempt to place accurate language in the California Code of Regulations (title 15), but the reality is that administrative law does not supersede statutory law.

Lifers and violent offenders benefit from behavior and work credit-earning programs because they have an incentive to conduct themselves in a positive manner while in CDCR custody. Such incentives deter many from gangs, violence, and other unsavory behavior. Lifers deemed suitable for early parole are vetted by the Board of Prison Hearings and, at times, by the Office of the Governor, as part of the system’s checks and balances for inmates’ rehabilitation and good behavior.

There were many Lifers who believed they would die in prison, but with criminal justice reform happening, they focused on their transformation to get out of prison, as opposed to maintaining a criminal lifestyle. They should continue to do so, irrespective of this recent stumbling block. 

Mike Romano, director of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School, weighed in when San Quentin News published its 2016 story about Prop 57. He did not offer specific details on how the new law would apply to any specific group of incarcerated people because, at the time, no one was certain.

“In some ways it’s guesswork,” he said. “We think there’s going to be two classes affected.”

Romano also made remarks that foreshadowed the Appellate Court decision. Paraphrasing his words, San Quentin News wrote, Proposition 57 may follow the Penal Code, and for inmates that it will affect, they may have an opportunity for early parole. “It gives lawyers a lot of arguing to do,” said Romano.

In the end, though, it was the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation’s lawsuit against the CDCR, which placed credits toward early release under court scrutiny to make the state prison system follow the Penal Code. Apart from the law, it was the timeless tactic of exacting vengeance upon felons long after many have been rehabilitated.

It is doubtful the CJLF would seek justice for, and represent, model prisoners serving life sentences who are arbitrarily denied parole for any number of reasons such as “minimizing,” “not taking responsibility,” “need more groups,” “get more self-help,” or “posing an unreasonable risk to public safety,” in the absence of the “some evidence” standard.

That is the underlying foundation of tacit hypocrisy in an organization that uses the words criminal justice in its name. Touché to the CJLF on what may be a short-lived victory. Lifers are used to waiting, though. Many are tough, resilient, and anything but defeated; so, as it has often been said, “Back to the drawing board.”