Another Stacked Commission, Another Slanted Report

Last year, the California Legislature created a committee to study revision of the Penal Code. Unlike, e.g., the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the statute made no effort whatever to achieve balance or bipartisanship. Yesterday, the committee issued its first report. See this article by Don Thompson for AP. Unsurprisingly, the report reflects a 100% pro-perpetrator viewpoint. Every change proposed is to move the law in the direction of reducing the consequences of criminals’ choices to violate the law and, in most cases, to violate the rights of other people. The possibility that some of the changes of the last decade have already gone too far and need to be rolled back does not appear to have even been considered.

The particulars of the report may be the subject of future posts, but one paragraph aptly sums up its overall tone (footnotes omitted):

LANGUAGE USED THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT

This report avoids using the term “inmate,” “prisoner,” or “offender.” Instead, the report uses “incarcerated person” and similar “person-first” language. Other official bodies have made similar choices about language, and the Committee encourages stakeholders — including the Legislature when drafting legislation — to consider doing the same.

The report does not give a reason for the change, but the title of one of the references describes the likely intent: “The Words Journalists Use Often Reduce Humans to the Crimes They Commit. But That’s Changing.” But the crimes that criminals have committed should be front and center in any discussion of the correct punishment. The crime is not everything, but it is the main thing, or at least it should be.

By using the term “incarcerated person,” the committee focuses on the unpleasant consequences imposed without reference to the crime that justified those consequences. The obvious purpose is to skew the discussion toward sympathy for those who are incarcerated and away the usually very good reasons why they are incarcerated.

Arguably the most controversial recommendation in the report is to expand so-called “second look” sentencing to deprive the victims of the crime of finality at the 15 year point regardless of the crime committed.

The most significant part of the committee’s discussion of this issue is the part that is missing. What does the committee say about the revictimization of victims of crime who must once again dredge up the memory of the most horrible day of their lives to oppose release of the perpetrator?

Not one blasted word.

And that tells you all you need to know about this committee.