Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Prop57 Svp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly hearing on AB 22 exposes sharp divide over repeal of Prop 57 and SVP releases; bill dies in committee
Summary
Assemblymember DeMaio27s AB 22, which sought to repeal Prop 57 and tighten rules on the release of sexually violent predators and certain registrants, drew intense testimony from victims27 families and criminal justice reform advocates. After extended debate the measure failed to get a second and was held in committee.
Assemblymember Kevin DeMaio introduced AB 22, a far‑reaching proposal the author described as a response to rising crime. The bill contained three principal elements: repeal of Proposition 57's early release provisions, tightened rules restricting where sexually violent predators (SVPs) could be released (including limiting release near tribal governments or residential communities), and a provision to restore mandatory registration for certain offenders affected by SB 145.
DeMaio framed the bill as correcting policy errors he said have contributed to a rise in violent crime. "It is time that we admit the mistake with Prop 57 and usher in its repeal," he told the committee, and said SVP releases into residential areas have produced public‑safety risks in his district.
Victims and family members gave emotional testimony supporting the measure. One parent said a 707‑year sentence felt necessary for their child's attacker and warned that statutory loopholes allowing early release would be "a complete betrayal" and "retraumatize" victims. Robert Metzman of the Orange County District Attorney's Office urged the committee to restore the original elderly‑parole thresholds for the most serious offenders.
Opponents said AB 22 would reverse decades of youth justice reform and risk exposing minors to adult prosecution. Daniel Mendoza, who said he was tried as an adult at 14 and later returned to juvenile court, argued the bill "will expose our young people to the harmful adult system and take away their ability to access developmentally appropriate services, treatment and programming." Public defenders, youth advocates and civil‑rights groups also warned the measure raised constitutional and practical problems and would likely increase incarceration for youths and others.
After several hours of testimony and committee discussion, the bill failed to proceed: the author27s motion lacked a second and "by operation of procedures, the bill dies," according to the chair. Committee staff had prepared an analysis noting constitutional and implementation concerns; a number of opposition groups had urged a "no" vote.
Ending: AB 22 did not advance out of the Public Safety Committee. Lawmakers and witnesses signaled deep disagreements about public safety, victim needs and the role of rehabilitation, indicating the debate will continue in other venues and election cycles.
