Way

—Effective July 1, 1977, California repealed its 60-year-old Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). On that date, the Uniform Deter *169 mínate Sentencing Act of 1976 1 (the Act) became operative, having been signed by the Governor on Septémber 21, 1976.

In contrast to the ISL, which was designed “to mitigate the punishment . . . place emphasis upon the reformation of the offender,” and “make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime” (In re Lee (1918) 177 Cal. 690, 692 [ 171 P. 958 ]), the Act declares that “the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by ... provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders....” (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1).) (Italics added.)

To achieve total uniformity, Penal Code section 1170.2 provides for retroactive application of the Act to prisoners incarcerated under the ISL. This has resulted in raised expectations for early release among certain current prisoners, and in fears among certain members of the public that prison “floodgates” would be opened. The latter fear has generated the two cases consolidated here, one from Sacramento County and one from San Diego County.

The Sacramento…

—I concur in the result and in much of the majority opinion. A concededly theoretical difference—a matter of emphasis rather than disagreement—impels me to withhold complete concurrence.

When the semantic smoke is cleared away, there is little substance to petitioners’ constitutional attack. According to all authoritative definitions, reprieve, pardon and commutation are acts of individualized clemency. The extension of a revised sentencing scheme to a collective mass of preexisting, unfulfilled sentences has consequential similarities but results from a wholly different variety of governmental power.

The constitutional attack centers upon Penal Code section 1170.2. That section is aimed at parity of time-in-custody between offenders sentenced under the old and new laws. The Legislature has here chosen to pursue equality as a deliberate goal of statutory policy.

California decisions intimate and out-of-state decisions hold that the attainment of equality and the prevention of discrimination are legitimate objectives of the police power. (See Mulkey v. Reitman (1966) 64 Cal.2d 529, 537 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 881 , 413 P.2d 825 ]; Jackson v. Pasadena City School Dist. (1963) 59 Cal.2d…

William A. Smith, District Attorney, Jerome M. Behrens, Deputy District Attorney, Gene L. Tunney, District Attorney, Kendall M. Squires, Rose, Rockwell & Jennings, D. Frederick Jay, Donald L. Clark, County Counsel, and William D. Smith, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

PARAS, J.

Effective July 1, 1977, California repealed its 60-year-old Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). On that date, the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 [1] (the Act) became operative, having been signed by the Governor on September 21, 1976. [2]

In contrast to the ISL, which was designed "to mitigate the punishment ... place emphasis upon the reformation of the offender," and "make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime" ( In re Lee (1918) 177 Cal. 690, 692 [ 171 P. 958 ]), the Act declares that "the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by ... provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders...." (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (a)(1).) (Italics added.)

To achieve total uniformity, Penal Code section 1170.2 provides for retroactive application of the Act to prisoners incarcerated under the ISL. This has resulted in…