Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976
California created its first parole system in 1893 as a mechanism to relieve prison overcrowding by granting early release.
Under that sentence, after 5 years, or perhaps less time with good behavior, the incarcerated person is reviewed by a parole board periodically until they are found suitable for release.
The Prison Reorganization Act of 1944 established the California Adult Authority, which among other responsibilities functioned as the California parole board, with expanded power to review parole candidates using "psychiatric and other diagnostic aids" and to release prisoners.
A series of lawsuits and subsequent legislation in the 1970s laid the groundwork for a move away from indeterminate sentences.
Morrissey v. Brewer required that parole only be revoked in accordance with due process, which invited scrutiny of all discretionary decisions in the prison system.
It had bi-partisan support, with liberal politicians and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the Prisoners' Union supporting the act because it theoretically provided greater sentencing accountability and procedural fairness, especially in regards to race, ethnic and educational background.
Parole was reframed as an additive period of carceral supervision rather than a continuation of a prison sentence.
Parole release as a mechanism to reduce the prison population in times of overcrowding was essentially eliminated as part of the legislation.
The Community Release Board was responsible for reviewing sentencing decisions for equity, hearing appeals to denial of "good time" credits, determining if parole should be revoked, and for applying the law retroactively.
The general effect of these structural changes was to remove discretion from the parole board and increase the power of the legislature, the judiciary, and prosecutors.
[12] Also in 1978, Senate Bill 1057, the "Public Protection Bill", increased the parole supervision period for people serving a determinate sentence to three years, and increased the parole supervision period for people serving a life sentence to five years.
[13] While the legislation had bi-partisan support, some criminologists predicted that the goal of more equitable sentencing would be undermined by the enhancement system and increased prosecutorial discretion.
The legislature doesn't know what to do to solve the crime problem and is frustrated with unsuccessful efforts at rehabilitation.
The article went on to summarize the zeitgeist captured by the law: "The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976, as amended in recent weeks, represents an increasing belief among liberals as well as conservatives that rehabilitation in prison rarely works and is difficult, if not impossible, to judge.
"[18] Under the guidance that prison was purely for punishment, the switch to determinate sentences came with decreased spending on rehabilitation.
Clannon, M.D., Superintendent at the California Medical Facility, discussed his opinion piece "Rehabilitation Was Working; Determinate Sentencing Results in a Greater Recidivism Rate and Leads to More Victims of Crimes.
During this second tenure, he sought to reduce the prison population and end court oversight of the California prison system, saying "The incentive power of the indeterminate sentence is crucial and something I really didn’t pay attention to back in 1977" and "Sentencing should not be the play toy of ambitious politics [...] It ought to be the judgment of serious minded individuals who are not running for office but have in mind public safety and have in mind the changes men and women can make over time.
