108916NCJRS.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • ., CAlKli:'()RNKA C()RTI~IECTKOl\JAt SYSTEM'S POlITCH1E§ RIE:C;ARTI)KNG PAROLE RJE1L1EASE • AND l\1E Nl'A ttY D rrS()R[) JERE D () IF flE NIJ£ RS ., • • • ! ~!, ' •. I' ) \ 1) .\,' '/ ) \' ' I 1\1. " ll'\'" l,:...; .• I) . ( ..L\ I!'.,.!. \ ' (,.~, ,I. ' I I j l , :: • " . I • I • • • • • • • a)'i ilirt! i kl,itj~j)ns ficp • ":tcl tL·1 CdP'll to ~ 9 h1m, 94 ?tv/. !) S~rr~rn~nto, tA Y4249-noo1 • • t.. • 108'Qlh CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM'S POLICIES REGARDING I PAROLE RELEASE I~ AND MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS • • • • ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY • FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I • LARRY STIRLING, Chair Robert Campbell Burt Margolin • Terry B. Friedman' Mike Roos Tim Lesl ie Paul E. Zeltner DeeDee D'Adamo 9 Counsel Laura Hankinss Consultant LARRY STIRLING CIIiEF COUNSEL CHAIR i\slltwbln SUSAN SHAW GOODMAN ROBERT CAMPBELL COUNSEL l'E~1RY B. FRIEDMAN LISA BURROUGHS WAGNER TIM LESLIE QtaUfnrnta 1JJegt111ature DEEDEE D'ADAMO BURr MARGOLIN MELISSA K NAPPAN MII<EROOS PAUL E ZELTNER CONSULTANT LAURA HANKINS COMMITTEE SECRETARY • DARLENE E. BLUE • 1100 ,) STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 (916) 445,3268 • August 5~ 1987 Honorab 1e kJi 11 i e L. Brown 9 Jr. Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol~ Room 219 • Sacramento~ California 95814 Dear Mr. Speaker~ The attached documents represent the testimony presented to the Committee on Public Safety at the "Informational Hearing on Parole Release Policies and • Evaluations and Treatment of Mentally Disordered Offenders." Also included are the committee's findings and recommendations regarding these issues. A number of expert witnesses testified regarding the recent release of convicted rapist-maimer, Lawrence Singleton, and regarding several related subject matter areas~ such as pre-release and post-release programming for • prisoners, parole placement, and mentally disordered offenders~ Their testill'Jny offers a rare opportunity for Californians to collectively address a series of major policy questions that must be resolved in the immediate future regarding the public safety of the State of California. The materials contained herein represent the testimony and deliberations which • resulted from the May 26th hearing. I would like to urge you and your staff to pay particular attention to the committee's recommendations, as I believe that the implementation of these recommendations is a crucial first step toward achieving correctional reform in California. • Sincerely, ~~IRLINGChair • LS:DD:rlm Enclosures • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i II. TABLE OF CONTENTSo •• oooooooo •• ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 11 IlL PURPOSE OF HEARING •• oo.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1 IV. THE SINGLETON CASEoooooooooooaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. 2 V. PRE-RELEASE PROGRAMS FOR PRISONERS ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5 VL PAR 0 LEo 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 «I 0 0 0 0 • ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • GOO 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 12 VII. 20 VIII. MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 24 IX. AGENDA/WITNESS LIST FROM HEARING ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 30 X. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 32 XI. APPENDIX Dl •••..•••••••••••.•..•.••••••••••••••••..•.•••••• 87 APPENDIX #2 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 88 APPENDIX #3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 91 APPENDIX #4 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 92 APPENDIX 05 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 94 APPENDIX 06 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 97 APPENDIX 07 •••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 100 AP PEN 0 I )( fiB 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 4' ••• 0 0 .0 0 , • 0 •• 6 •• 0 0 0 0 • '" • 0 0 0 •• 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 103 • APPENDIX 09 •.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 104 APPENDIX #10 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 105 APPENDIX 011 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 107 APPENDIX 012 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 110 • • • 11 • • II. PURPOSE OF HEARING • At the height or the Department of Correction's (CDC) attempts to locate a con~unity 1n which to release convicted rapist-maimer Lawrence Singleton 9 this committee caned a special hear'ing ror the purpose of informing the public of CDC's parole policies and related issues g such as evaluations and treatment of mentally disordered offenders n and pre-release and post-release programs for • convicted felons. In his opening statement n Larry Stirling 9 Chair of the Assembly Committee on Public SafetYn stated that the Singleton release 11'191111ghts several issues regarding the correctional system: the lack of an informed public regard'lng how many felons are being released 9 under what conditions they are being • released n and what the public can or cannot do to prevent the release of dangerous felons into their communities. Chairman Stirling also stated that the Singleton release points out the weakness of our correctional system in releasing inmates with mental disorders. In calling this special hearing, Chairman Stirling stated that it was his intent to get to the bottom of the public's concerns and fears about the • releases of prisoners like Singleton, to find out what the scope and extent of the releases are~ to find out the strengths and weaknesses of legislation which authorizes the extended commitment of parolees who have mental disorders~ to determine what CDC does about reinserting felons into society, and what parole • authorities do to ensure public safety. t'Jhat follows 'is a summary of relevant prov'isions of law, a summav'y of testimony, and this committee's findings and recommendations with respect to these issues. • • • • • • IV. THE SINGLETON CASE • A) Facts. On September 30$) 1978, Lawrance Singleton kidnapped a young girl in Stanislaus CountYD committed various forcible se){ acts upon harD and • chopped off her lot'J€w arms with a hatchet. After a change of venue motion VJi.ilS granted g Shlg1 eton was tri ad by a jury in San Diego County. He ';Jas convicted of 7 felonies: 1 count each of uttemDted murder D mayhem, kidnapping\) forcible rape, forcible sodomyp and 2 counts of forced oral copul i?t i on (see Append i)( 1,}1) 0 Three charges card ad enhancements for both the infl iction of great bod; ly injuty l.md for' the use of a deadly weapon. • The jury convicted on all of the substantive charges and on the enhancements chm~ged -In 2 of the 3 substantive counts" (The jmqy acquitted on the enhancements charged with the kidnapping count.) On April 20 g 1979 g a San Diego Superior Court sentenced Singleton to 14 years and 4 months in state prison6 Singleton had a prior record of 3 • drunk driving convictions and 2 public 'intoxication convictions between 1955 and 1978. A'lthough the probation department recommended 15 years and 4 months D the judge decided to impose the middle rather than the aggravated term for attempted murder (the base term count) since the reasons for aggravating that count may have been cmcompassed in the sentences given for • the other crimes. B) S1 ny] eton~~.Ji~.1§l"gj}e~ Are He J{e2-_cJl? On April 25~ 1987 g after serving 8 years and 5 dQYs of his 14-year 4-month sentenceD Singleton became eligible for parole. Since Singleton was sentenced to a IIdeterminate term" (a tet'm \1hich rHilS \it predetermined end) g • once he completed his sentence~ CDC had no eho"jcG but to Y'elease him. Current la1:J provides that prisoners are el'igible to receive a one day ~"eductiol1 in the-ir stBntence for each day of p€w'tic'ipation in \'lork~ training~ or education programs (Penal Code Section 2933 9 See Appendix #2). Pursuant to these provisions, Singleton was employed as a teaching aide for • English classes while he \'las incarcerated in state prison at the California r4en's Colony (Cr,1C) in San Luis Obispo. Singleton received a 29021-day reduction 1n his sentence for partiCipation in this work program. (From May 16 g 1979 until April 3g 1984 9 Singleton recGlved a 1/3 reduction in his sentence rather than 1/2 pursuant to the pl'''ovisions of the "goodtime" law which were in effect at that time. Pcrmal Code Section 2931~ see Appendix • 1)2. ) According to the District Attorney of Starrlslalls CtJUi'ity~ Donald Stahl, who triad the Singleton case, "SinglGton comes out of prison vengeful and 1I unrahabilitatedo Haire not ready for him ll and he's not ready for us. t·tr. • Stahl testified that he believes g bosed upon the evidence 1n the case and • • upon Singleton's behavior during trial and while incareerated n that Singleton has a mental dh;order t'Jrlicil needs to be treated. liTo this dayo Singleton believes in his innocenceo Each dayo Singleton 'tries ' himself in his OVJfi mind o and comes up tilth 0 different story which indicates his • innocencG. 1I Add1tionallY9 Mr. Stahl believes that as a parolee, Singleton poses a threat to the public safety because of his mental disorder. This is evidenced by the fact that while Singleton was incarcerated g he made severa 1 threats ago; nst r'~r 0 StahL Concerned that there was a , Bel< of • effort on COCls part to treat and rehabilitate Singleton n Mr. Stahl contacted EoJ. Martin. Assistant Warden at CMC 9 to request that Singleton receive a mental health evaluation and treatment for mental disorders as well as for substance abuse. According to Dr. Nadim !(hoW"'Yg Chief of the ~,1edical Services Division for • cnc g Singh~tofl v,ras evaluated by several psyclliatli'1sts \'Jhile he VJas incarcerated