Eye on the Courts: Support Needed for Third Strikers Released Through Prop 36

The case of Eliaser Aguilar is the exact type of case that Proposition 36, passed overwhelmingly by the voters last November, attempted to address.  Mr. Aguilar spent nearly 14 years in prison for a single count of possession of meth in 1999.

The Aguilar case, in fact, illustrates the flaws of the previous system.  Mr. Aguilar, you see, was not being punished for his use of meth so much as he was for his previous offense, back in 1987, when he was 30 years old and committed a string of armed robberies.

Under the previous law, the judge had the discretion to “strike” one of the previous strikes – something that Judge Timothy Fall back in 1999 recognized.  By striking a previous strike, one still faces a doubled prison term, which back in 1999 would have been eight years.

However, the DA’s office appealed Judge Fall’s decision and in 2001 they overturned it, and Judge Fall was forced to sentence Mr. Aguilar to 25 years to life for a single count of possession of methamphetamine.

Prop 36 has far greater teeth than the previous law, pushing the burden of proof onto the prosecutor that the offender presents “a current, unreasonable danger to public safety.”

There is no doubt that Mr. Aguilar, back in 1987, was a dangerous criminal committing a string of armed robberies.  But that was 26 years ago.  Back then he was 30, now he’s 56.

That the District Attorney’s office would want to contest Mr. Aguilar’s release from prison is not a surprising move.  We can understand their reasons for wanting to prevent Mr. Aguilar’s release.

What is striking about their argument, other than getting the law wrong in terms of the burden of proof, is the speculative nature of it.

Deputy DA Christopher Bulkeley argues, “The Petitioner will require a funding source to purchase his drugs in the future. He is virtually unemployable as he has no identifiable job skills coupled with a nonexistent employment history for the last few decades. He will most likely revert to criminal activities in order to fund his illicit drug use which has the potential to turn violent if one looks at past performance as an indication of future conduct.”

The honest fact of the matter is that Mr. Bulkeley is not exactly wrong here.  Mr. Aguilar has been in prison for most of the last 26 years.  He lacks job skills.  He lacks a familial support structure.

And, most importantly, Prop 36 lacks any kind of supervision component and it lacks any kind of support structure.  It is a limited flaw in Prop 36 which is mostly a prospective law – it will change sentencing in the future.  But with regard to releasing inmates on past non-violent, non-dangerous offenses, it seems to set people up for failure.

The legislature could and should step in and provide some funding for people like Eliaser Aguilar to have a chance to get their lives back in order, to get some job skills and avoid going right back to prison.

At the same time, I think the DA’s argument is completely off base.  We put Mr. Aguilar in prison for 14 years for possession of a drug.  That is an indefensible punishment for an extremely minor crime.  Punishing Mr. Aguilar twice for his 1987 crime seems to violate the very principles upon which this nation’s justice system rests.

Moreover, is our $50,000 a year prison cell really the best place to help Mr. Aguilar get back on his feet?

Counties across the state, in attempting to deal with AB 109, have had to make decisions about how to spend millions in state AB 109 funds.

Last summer, Yolo County made the decision to spend its $6 million on everything from more jail space at the county jail to increased electronic monitoring and supervision of offenders following release.  About $1 million of that will go to treatment centers and support for offenders.

While most of the officials ended up supporting the arrangement, Supervisor Don Saylor said that, while he favored aspects of the plan, he did not believe enough was going to substance abuse, housing assistance, job skills training, and behavioral health needs.

Without these supports, the fear is that offenders will simply reoffend and end up right back in the system.

“We have an opportunity to reframe the system,” Supervisor Saylor said at the time, as quoted in a Davis Enterprise article from July. “But the absence of support services makes it challenging. We’re not at a place where we are balancing enforcement with supportive services.”

The Enterprise reported in July, “Rather, he noted, 16 percent of AB 109 funds will go toward treatment and the day reporting center, and while the center will provide substance abuse and behavioral health treatment, along with education and employment services, it would not be available to the entire population that might need it, Saylor said.”

Bob Schelen, who chaired the Yolo County Mental Health Board, also noted the inequity in funding.

He told Supervisors, “”There are counties were the monies have been split on an almost 50-50 basis between treatment (and enforcement) and we should be one of those counties.”

While the AB 109 argument is somewhat separate, the core issue is the same – how do you provide services that can get people released from custody the support they need so that they do not have to do, as Mr. Bulkeley argues, offend in order to support themselves?

The DA here wants to have it both ways – they won’t support the evidence-based support system approaches to prevent recidivism, and then they use the lack of resources as justification for keeping people incarcerated for relatively minor offenses in prison longer, at huge costs to the public.

From a cost perspective, it is far cheaper to treat Mr. Aguilar and provide him with training and support than it is to keep him in custody.  But we need to find a way to provide him and thousands like him who will be released in the coming months with the services they need to avoid going right back to prison and, more importantly, preventing innocent people from being hurt in the process.

—David M. Greenwald reporting