California Penal Reform and the Violent Criminals It Let Loose |

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire.

By Ana Kasparian, RealClearInvestigations
May 1, 2025

Smiley Martin’s life was a textbook case of how the criminal justice system can fail spectacularly.

A seasoned offender with a lengthy history of violence, Martin received a 10-year sentence in 2018 for a brutal assault on his girlfriend. While incarcerated, he further demonstrated his proclivity for violence by attacking another inmate and engaging in various criminal activities. Yet, miraculously, he was released after just four years—thanks to a plea deal that bizarrely classified him as a “nonviolent offender” and a California ballot initiative that prioritized early release for “good behavior.”

Fast forward to two months post-release, and Martin, alongside accomplices including his brother, orchestrated the deadliest mass shooting in Sacramento’s history—claiming six lives and injuring a dozen others on April 3, 2022. He faced three counts of murder and illegal possession of firearms, including a machine gun. However, any trial for these serious charges became moot when the 29-year-old died in jail from a drug overdose last September.

Martin’s saga shines a glaring spotlight on the implications of Proposition 57, the very criminal justice reform that allowed him back onto the streets. Introduced to the public in 2016 as a remedy for overcrowded prisons, this ballot measure was marketed as a humanitarian fix to what activists labeled a “mass incarceration epidemic.” Instead, it has reportedly enabled tens of thousands of violent offenders, Martin included, to re-enter society.

Unsurprisingly, many of these individuals have found themselves back in the system. The latest Recidivism Report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicates that approximately two-thirds (64.2%) of the 34,215 inmates released early between July 2019 and June 2020 were rearrested as of April 2, 2025.

Breaking down these statistics further, we discover that “22.1% of the release cohort (7,567 individuals) were convicted of a felony offense, and 17.0% (5,828 individuals) were convicted of a misdemeanor offense.” Alarmingly, nearly half of early-release inmates did not earn any good behavior credits.

Critics of Prop 57 have not been shocked by these developments. During the 2016 campaign leading up to the measure’s approval by 65% of voters, opponents raised red flags, warning that violent offenders like Martin would exploit this initiative.

These concerns were brushed aside as fearmongering. When Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert cautioned that Prop 57 would lead to the release of domestic violence perpetrators, the then-Governor Jerry Brown, a staunch supporter of the measure, dismissed her claims as “a complete red herring” and “disingenuous.” He reassured the public that each inmate’s crime and prison behavior would be taken into account before granting release.

While proponents of Prop 57 touted it as an enlightened response to a court mandate, critics argue that its supporters misrepresented the measure to facilitate its passage. In an era when President Trump has targeted progressive criminal justice organizations, the troubled legacy of Prop 57 underscores the balancing act of rehabilitating inmates and alleviating overcrowding without resorting to building new prisons.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Role

The chief proponent of Prop 57, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, was navigating the aftermath of a sentencing reform he had enacted back in 1976. That earlier legislation was emblematic of the tough-on-crime era, but decades later, with Brown in office again, California’s prisons housed nearly double their intended capacity. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately intervened, ruling that the conditions in these facilities violated inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

In May 2011, the Court ordered the state to reduce its prison population, citing overcrowding that prevented adequate medical care for inmates—an infringement on human dignity. At its peak in 2006, California’s prison population exceeded 165,000, far beyond the 85,000 for which the system was designed. The Court directed the state to trim its inmate count by 30,000 to abide by constitutional standards.

To appease federal oversight, Brown collaborated with the state legislature to pass AB109, transitioning inmates from overcrowded state prisons to county jails. However, many of these county facilities faced similar overcrowding issues and lacked the capacity to accommodate the influx. As a result, counties began releasing inmates years ahead of their scheduled sentences.

By 2014, a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed that over 13,500 inmates were being released early from county jails each month throughout the state. Although assurances were made that only low-risk offenders were being let go, data indicated that some counties ceased incarcerating individuals convicted of serious crimes like domestic violence and child abuse.

The case of Sidney DeAvila, a convicted sex offender released early in February 2013, exemplified the unintended repercussions of AB109. After his early release, he went on to commit the heinous acts of raping, killing, and dismembering his 76-year-old grandmother.

Despite the fallout from AB109, Brown continued to advocate for further reforms with the 2014 ballot measure, Prop 47, which was framed as a simple reduction of penalties for nonviolent crimes like petty theft and drug possession. However, voters were largely unaware that it would also diminish penalties for more serious offenses, such as car theft and drug trafficking.

Undeterred, Brown pushed for additional reforms under the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, or Prop 57, which he claimed would tackle the overcrowding crisis while ensuring community safety. He framed it as a progressive step towards rehabilitation, believing in the potential for change in inmates. “All of us learn. I’ve learned in 40 years,” Brown stated. “I think prisoners can learn.”

Yet, Brown also attempted to reassure voters that there would be strict limits to the progressive measures. He emphasized that only individuals “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.” In 2016, he estimated that around 1,100 prisoners per year would qualify for this program—a far cry from the 16,000 projected by prosecutors opposed to the measure.

Critics, including law enforcement and victims’ advocates, contend that Brown’s estimates were misleading and aimed at downplaying the measure’s potential impact. Despite assurances that violent offenders would be excluded, the previous crime reclassification efforts meant that only 23 specific crimes—like murder, rape, arson, and carjacking—would disqualify inmates from Prop 57 benefits. Many offenses the public would deem violent, such as Martin’s vicious assault on his girlfriend, were not on that exclusion list.

“Dozens of serious crimes would be considered non-violent for parole purposes,” noted CalMatters columnist Dan Walters, highlighting that crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, and even various forms of manslaughter could qualify as nonviolent.

Plea bargains also opened the door for violent criminals to be eligible for early release. For instance, Martin was initially charged with kidnapping, a violent offense, but that charge was dropped in his plea deal.

Brown further assured voters that individuals convicted of sexual crimes would not qualify for early release. However, California’s Penal Code astonishingly classifies offenses like the rape of an unconscious person and sex trafficking as nonviolent felonies. Attorney General Rob Bonta, confirming the classification issues, stated that these offenses need to be revisited under Prop 57.

In a significant move, the state legislature agreed to reclassify the solicitation of minors for sex as a felony in September 2024, a step long overdue considering it had previously been treated as a mere misdemeanor.

In 2021, California’s Supreme Court weighed in on Prop 57 and sided unanimously with those arguing that Brown had misrepresented the measure’s scope. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye acknowledged that the Corrections Department must concede that individuals convicted of certain offenses, such as assault with a deadly weapon, would indeed be eligible for nonviolent offender parole consideration.

The ruling also pointed out that serious sex crime perpetrators were qualifying for early release under Prop 57, stating that the initiative’s language did not indicate an intention to exclude such inmates. While the Court did not explicitly name Brown, his promotion of the measure was subtly critiqued. “Had the drafters of Proposition 57, and by extension the voters, intended to exclude inmates from nonviolent offender parole consideration based on prior or current sex offense convictions,” the Chief Justice commented, “it would have been a simple matter to say so explicitly.”

Despite the Court’s ruling, it had little impact, as voters soon rejected another initiative aimed at closing the violent crime loophole in Prop 57—Proposition 20. This measure sought to limit early release for violent crimes not explicitly listed in California’s Penal Code.

However, it was misleadingly framed as restricting “access to parole programs established for nonviolent offenders.” In essence, there was a fundamental confusion surrounding the term “nonviolent,” as many voters were unaware that the penal code classified serious crimes, such as the rape of an unconscious person, as nonviolent offenses. Thus, voters mistakenly believed Prop 20 sought to impose strict penalties for minor crimes, which is anathema to the liberal sentiments prevalent in California.

The timing of Prop 20 may have also contributed to its defeat, as voters evaluated the measure in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and during a national “racial reckoning.” There was a growing disinterest in public safety enforcement and a stronger inclination towards criminal justice reforms focused on addressing mass incarceration and racial injustices.

Credit Where Credit Wasn’t Due

Even if voters had been informed that individuals guilty of serious crimes, such as child trafficking or domestic violence, would still qualify for early release under Prop 57, there was a common belief that inmates would not receive shortened sentences without engaging in rehabilitation programs or earning good behavior credits. However, the latest CDCR report reveals that of the 34,215 inmates released early in the 2019 fiscal year, 13,833 did not earn any such credits. Alarmingly, 44% of those without credits were convicted of new crimes post-release.

Even more concerning is that the report acknowledges the early release of “high risk” inmates, who statistically have a higher likelihood of reoffending. According to the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), individuals are categorized into high, moderate, and low-risk groups, with corresponding recidivism rates of approximately 60%, 40%, and 20%. Yet in fiscal year 2019, “41.2 percent of individuals in the release cohort had a high-risk score according to the CSRA.”

Indeed, many inmates released under Prop 57 in 2019 went on to reoffend, with 44% being convicted of new crimes. Conversely, those who earned rehabilitative credits saw a lower conviction rate of 35.8%. Among the 39.1% of parolees convicted of other crimes within three years of their release, 22.1% were for felonies, and 17% for misdemeanors. Notably, only 17.4% of those convicted of felonies returned to prison, though the percentage of returns for crimes against persons increased by 2.9 points—the largest rise for any crime category.

While overcrowding was the impetus for measures like Prop 57, state officials have paradoxically closed several prisons in recent years. In 2021 alone, four prisons were shuttered, suggesting that the state is intentionally sidestepping incarceration for convicts to facilitate further prison closures for both financial and ideological reasons.

A local Los Angeles publication reported last spring that “due to the declining inmate count, California can close up to five more of its 33 prisons and eight yards within operating prisons while still complying with a federal court order that caps the system’s capacity.” The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that this could save the state up to $1 billion annually. However, the cost to public safety, stemming from a lack of facilities to detain violent offenders, was glaringly absent from this financial analysis.

By November 2024, a growing number of Californians expressed their discontent. Over 65% of Alameda County voters approved the recall of Oakland’s progressive District Attorney Pamela Price, while Los Angeles voters opted not to reelect D.A. George Gascon, replacing him with a more traditional tough-on-crime candidate, Nathan Hochman. Additionally, nearly 70% of voters supported Proposition 36, which aimed to reverse earlier measures that softened penalties for offenses such as shoplifting and drug trafficking.

Despite strong opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who criticized Prop 36 as an unfunded mandate that would “set this state back,” the measure passed. Newsom’s concerns stem from the financial implications of holding criminals accountable in one of the highest-taxed states. If drug traffickers and habitual smash-and-grab offenders face harsher penalties, the spotlight would inevitably shift to him for having preemptively closed facilities essential for serving their sentences.

In a recent interview, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell voiced his frustration regarding the challenges of meeting community safety demands with diminishing prison capacity. “While the [District Attorney] will file cases that are now available to us through Prop 36, you still have a jail system that is continuously shrinking,” he explained. “When I was Sheriff, there were 18,000 beds available [in Los Angeles County]. It’s now down to 12,400,” he lamented, asserting that the lack of available beds contributes to many offenders returning to the streets without adequate resources or rehabilitation.

While Gov. Newsom has professed his commitment to “absolutely implement the will of the voters” following the passage of Prop 36, the state legislature has failed to allocate necessary funding for its implementation. The stark reality is that even with funding, Californians face significant hurdles due to a series of policy decisions that have eroded public safety, including Prop 57, crime reclassifications, and ongoing prison closures.

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.