Committee rejects expansion of arson sentencing tied to forest‑land acreage; reconsideration granted

Assemblymember Hadwick presented AB 297, a proposal to add a sentencing enhancement for arson that burns 500 or more acres of forest land. The author said the measure would give judges another option to hold arsonists accountable for large-scale environmental damage and relieve fire-threatened communities.

Pat Espinosa, representing the California District Attorneys Association, supported the bill as a narrowly focused tool for “the worst of the worst” but emphasized it was permissive rather than mandatory. Supporters included sheriff and police organizations and victims’ groups.

Opponents—led by George Prampton of ACLU California Action, and several public-defender and criminal‑justice reform organizations—argued increased penalties do not deter crime and would disproportionately harm people with mental-health needs and low-income communities. Prampton highlighted studies the opposition cited that found little deterrent effect from sentencing enhancements and warned of collateral harms from overcriminalization.

Committee members questioned the bill’s necessity given existing penalties for aggravated arson and the potential for disparate impacts. The chair noted existing arson penalties already range significantly depending on harm (e.g., up to six years for arson of forest land, up to nine years when great bodily injury results) and expressed concerns about proximate-cause language.

On the committee vote, the measure failed in the initial roll call. Assemblymember Hadwick moved for reconsideration and indicated a willingness to work with opponents; the committee granted reconsideration without objection so the author can continue negotiations.