A vast number of crimes are committed by a small number of felons known as career criminals. California studies have suggested that 60% of persons arrested for robbery have a prior felony conviction. It has been theorized that Section 667 of the California Penal Code is not in harmony with the generally accepted supposition of punishment under the rehabilitation theory; therefore, California’s system of law and order hinders rather than aids the assimilation of the recidivist back into society. California’s expansive failure in preventing further criminal activity from repeat offenders can be directly attributed to the system of justice based on the retributive theory currently in place.

Section 667 of the California Penal Code was drafted by the legislature with the intent to ensure longer prison sentences for those who commit felonies and have been previously convicted of serious felonies. What the statute has effectively done is marginalize the percentage of repeat offenders who desire to be legitimate, contributing members of society. Under a portion of California Penal Code Section 1192.7, certain drug-related offenses are considered a “serious felony” and would therefore fall under the austere provisions of Section 667. Section 667(c)(4) of the California Penal Code specifically states that “diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center.” The California Rehabilitation Center’s mission statement is to successfully treat and return all felon addicts to a useful and productive lifestyle. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence and approximately one quarter of those held in U.S. prisons for conviction of a drug offense, it is hard to justify the strict language of Cal. P.(c)(4). Moreover, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses. Read the rest of this entry »