I respectfully dissent.
The majority find that a discriminatory statute, which allows adults to be released after serving two-thirds of their prison term but denies the same right to “youthful offenders” committed to the Youth Authority, does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. By this holding, this court endorses the anomaly that an individual who is sentenced to the Youth Authority may be incarcerated for a period of time 50 percent longer than another individual sentenced to prison although both were convicted of (1) the same crime, (2) in the same court and (3) given precisely the same term. Ah, the advantages of being a youthful offender!
In People v. Olivas (1976) 17 Cal.3d 236 [131 Cal.Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375], this court held that liberty is a fundamental interest and a classification scheme, which offends such an interest, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny unless the state can establish a compelling state interest in maintaining the discriminatory distinctions. Olivas recognized that youthful offenders were treated differently than adult offenders and “subjected to significantly greater terms of incarceration as a result of those convictions solely by reason of their age.” (Id., at p. 243.) The court went on to declare “such a sentencing scheme constitutes a denial of equal protection . ...” (Ibid.)
The principles enunciated in Olivas have been applied by the Courts of Appeal repeatedly to prevent youthful offenders from being subject to any confinement or custody greater than that they would face if they had been sentenced to prison rather than committed to the Youth Authority.
In People v. Sandoval (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 73, 89 [138 Cal.Rptr. 609, 99 A.L.R.3d 765], the Court of Appeal held that denying credit to youthful offenders for time spent in custody prior to Youth Authority *168commitment violated equal protection since adults sentenced to prison received such credits pursuant to Penal Code section 2900.5. The Sandoval court recognized that youthful offenders were a subclass of people sentenced to imprisonment by the criminal courts. To deny them such credits would be discriminatory. (Ibid.) In Sandoval, the court noted that “Olivas would appear to compel our conclusion . . . . ” (Ibid.)
Similarly in People v. Franklin (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 250, 253-254 [162 Cal.Rptr. 284], the Court of Appeal applied Olivas and recognized that youthful offenders could not have a greater period of parole control than prisoners sentenced to state prison for the same offenses.
Indeed, People v. Vasquez (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 42, 46-51 [156 Cal.Rptr. 235], indicated that Olivas compelled the recognition of conduct credits for youthful offenders, the very issue presented in this case. “The CYA, conformable to the precepts of People v. Olivas, supra, 17 Cal.3d 236 [131 Cal.Rptr. 55, 551 P.2d 375], has the authority and obligation to award [this youthful offender], if he can establish entitlement under the statutes and regulations, good behavior/performance credit of one-third off . .. ,”1 (Id., at p. 49.)
While the Olivas rationale is recited in the majority opinion, the majority refuse to apply it because they find this case somehow distinguishable. The majority’s attempts to set down purported distinctions cannot withstand close scrutiny.
The first purported distinction the majority find between the present case and Olivas is that the issue here involves when a release may be obtained prior to the expiration of the full term, not an inequality of terms. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 162.) However, this is a distinction without a difference because the fundamental liberty interest involved is the same. The impact on the liberty interest made by the statutory classification must be measured by the length of actual deprivation.
A well-behaved prisoner in state prison, who participates in work programs, will be released after service of two-thirds of the “term of imprisonment” by virtue of Penal Code sections 2930 through 2932. A *169well-behaved, participating youthful offender sentenced to the same term for the same offense may be incarcerated for the entire term under the present statutory scheme.2 In such a situation, how can anyone claim that this classification scheme does not affect a fundamental interest? The fact that the imposed terms of imprisonment were equal theoretically does not negate the harsh reality that the youthful offender may serve an increased period of incarceration simply because he is a youthful offender and is denied good conduct credits.3 Youthful offenders are still “singled out for potentially longer terms of incarceration” than adult prisoners in similar circumstances. (People v. Olivas, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 242.)
The majority opinion holds that longer incarceration of youthful offenders is necessary to advance the state’s interest in their rehabilitation. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 162-163, 165-166.) The same argument was advanced and rejected in Olivas: “Even though we agree that the state has an interest in the rehabilitation of youthful offenders we have not been shown how this sentencing scheme is necessary to further that interest.” (People v. Olivas, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 255.) Similarly, there has been no showing here that the subjection of well-behaved, participating youthful offenders to a period of incarceration 50 percent longer than adult convicts sentenced to prison is necessary to further the *170state’s rehabilitative interests. The hard questions posed by this issue in Olivas are virtually unanswered by the majority opinion. “What is to limit the Legislature from expanding the inequality ... to allow rehabilitative detention of youthful offenders until they are 30 or 40 years old or for life? .. . [W]hat other constitutional provision [than equal protection] would bar a statute permitting the lifelong confinement of marginally incorrigible misdemeanant shoplifters, for example, under the beneficent guise of rehabilitative treatment?” (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
The majority evidently take it as an article of faith that incarceration that may be 50 percent longer than that meted out as punishment is necessary for rehabilitation of youthful offenders. By means of this vast, unsupported and unwarranted assumption, the majority find the compelling state interest test set forth in Olivas has been satisfied. The folly of this view was exposed nearly a quarter of a century ago by the drafters of the Model Penal Code: “We recognize the theory of provisions of this kind [permitting longer confinement of youthful offenders], that such a longer term is more reformative than a short, definite sentence to jail. This is a case, however, where we think that theory has outrun a sense of just proportion. Simple regard for personal liberty—of young no less than of mature adults—requires, in our view that younger people not be subject to more onerous sentences because of their immaturity.” (Model Pen. Code, § 6.05, com. (Tent. Draft No. 7, May 3, 1957), quoted with approval in People v. Olivas, supra, 17 Cal. 3d at p. 254.)
In an effort to justify the denial of conduct credits to youthful offenders the majority attempt to use as authority for their position People v. Saffell (1979) 25 Cal.3d 223 [157 Cal.Rptr. 897, 599 P.2d 92]. Saffell held that mentally disordered sex offenders (MDSO’s) were not entitled to a reduction of their maximum hospital commitment period by the one-third conduct credits provided state prisoners by Penal Code sections 2930 through 2932. This result was reached in Saffell by holding that “[t]he confinement term of a prisoner and the commitment of an MDSO are essentially different in nature.... [T]he commitment of an MDSO offender, designed primarily for treatment, results from a proceeding separate from the criminal action.” (People v. Saffell, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 230.)
As the Saffell court noted, a person cannot be denominated an MDSO unless it is proven, in a proceeding separate from the criminal action, that “‘by reason of mental defect, disease, or disorder, [he] is *171predisposed to the commission of sexual offenses to such a degree that he is dangerous to the health and safety of others.’” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6300; quoted in People v. Saffell, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 226.)
Contrast this with a youthful offender who is committed to the Youth Authority after being sentenced in a criminal proceeding in exactly the same fashion as an offender who is sent to state prison. “[C]ommitment to the authority is a pronouncement of the sentence for the offense.” (People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248, 271 [102 Cal.Rptr. 137, 497 P.2d 481].) No proceedings or findings separate from the criminal proceedings are involved in a Youth Authority commitment. The majority opinion’s equation of youthful offenders with MDSO’s is not only misplaced, it is simply wrong. The analysis in Saffell makes this fact crystal clear.
Other reasons given in Saffell for denying MDSO’s who are committed to hospitals the same type of credits given to state prisoners are similarly inapplicable to youthful offenders incarcerated in the Youth Authority. In Saffell, the court was concerned that good conduct credits for MDSO’s might interfere with the therapeutic relationship between hospital officials and their mentally disturbed patients. (People v. Saffell, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 234.) No such danger is involved here. Further, the court in Saffell was concerned that state hospitals might lack the type of “‘work, educational, vocational [or] therapeutic’” activities in which MDSO’s could participate to satisfy the requirements of Penal Code section 2931, subdivision (c). (Ibid.) The Youth Authority has such programs. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1768; Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 15, § 4760 et seq.)
The administration of conduct credits for MDSO’s was thought to be beyond the ability or resources of state hospital officials. As a result, the court did not want to impose such a duty. (People v. Saffell, supra, 25 Cal. 3d at p. 234.) The Youth Authority does not lack the administrative expertise or resources for such a program. It already has in operation administrative procedures for the setting and extension date of a youthful offender’s parole consideration. (See Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 15, §§ 4621, 4630 et seq., 4945, subds. (i) and (j).)
The majority opinion states that conduct credits “have meaning only within the context of a fixed term.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 165.) In so doing, they overlook the fact that a youthful offender’s term is fixed in *172precisely the same fashion as a defendant sentenced to prison. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 453.)
In deciding whether a youthful offender is to receive a mitigated, mid-term or aggravated term or whether multiple offense terms are to be served concurrently or consecutively, the judge considers the same factors as he or she would if the offender were an adult. Thus, the terms are the same from which good conduct credits would be deducted, whether the person were sentenced to prison or the Youth Authority. The language of People v. Sandoval, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at page 91 is instructive. “There is ... no difficulty inherent in applying such credit against the maximum term an adult felon sentenced to prison could be held and then limiting the CYA commitment to the resulting remainder.”
The majority’s reliance on a 1947 declaration of the Legislature that conduct credits are inconsistent with the Indeterminate Sentence Law is also misplaced. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 165.) This 1947 amendment has little application to the situation at hand. A Youth Authority commitment is not comparable to a sentence under the old Indeterminate Sentence Law as it operated in 1947.4 As noted above, the Youth Authority term is determined in the identical manner as a Determinate Sentencing Act term, with the length of term tailored to the circumstances of the offense. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170, 1170.1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 453.) Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, all defendants convicted of the same offense received the same indeterminate sentence. *173That term was not determined by reference to whether the crime was aggravated or mitigated in nature. The trial judge was specifically instructed not to “fix the term or duration of the period of imprisonment.” (Former Pen. Code, § 1168, amended by Stats. 1941, ch. 106, § 13, p. 1083.) The Indeterminate Sentence Law’s “terms prescribed by law” in 1947 had for the most part very large ranges and very high maximum possible terms.5
The only similarity between a current Youth Authority commitment from adult court and the Indeterminate Sentence Law is the power of the executive branch to make a parole release decision at virtually any time after commitment. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1766.) It is this facet of the Youth Authority commitment which appears to be central to the majority’s decision that “. .. Y. A. committees may be released earlier—or later—than their imprisoned counterparts....” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 164.) The majority appear to have reverted to a “quid pro quo” analysis, wherein a youthful offender is compelled to pay for the possibility of an early release by having to accept the reality that his incarceration period may be longer than that served by a defendant sentenced to prison. This rationale was rejected in Olivas when the court refused to endorse a variant of the “quid pro quo” justification advanced by the state. There, it was argued that the “amenities” of the Youth Authority, as compared to prison, justified longer confinement. (People v. Olivas, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 253.) This argument was forcefully rejected by this court. “[W]hen we attempt to square the quid pro quo rationale with fundamental interest analysis, we find it constitutionally inadequate.... Moreover, such an argument presupposes that defendant’s interest in freedom from incarceration is a fungible commodity which can be casually traded, albeit involuntarily, like apples or oranges.” (Ibid.) The fact that the state deems some offenders capable of rehabilitation and provides for their release as soon as that goal is reached is no justification in law or logic for extending the incarceration of youths beyond the period meted out to those being punished in state prison for identical conduct.
*174Next, the majority seek to justify their ruling by the assertion that institutional good conduct and participation in programs are already taken into consideration in the setting of parole dates for youthful offenders. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 164.) Although behavior and participation are included in a laundry list of some 16 factors to be considered when deviating from a particular parole date, a youthful offender is not entitled to a one-third reduction as is the adult offender. (See Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 15, § 4945, subd. (i).) In the prison setting, good conduct and participation give the prisoner a right to a reduction in his sentence. If that right is denied, there is administrative appeal as well as the possibility of judicial action. In the Youth Authority, good conduct and credit give the youthful offender no more than a hope that when considered with 15 or more other factors, such conduct may result in an early release date. Good conduct or participation credits are not mandated. In fact the Youthful Offender Parole Board has been given the discretion to ignore the good conduct if one or more of the other factors tips the scale in favor of nonrelease. Surely, mere consideration of good conduct is not treatment equal to the statutory entitlement to credit provided to state prison inmates.
Finally, the majority seek solace in the fact that denial of good conduct credits will have a “limited effect” in that the maximum confinement, even if computed with the grant of one-third conduct credits, is not reached by many youthful offenders due to the length of their terms and/or their proximity to their 25th birthday. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 165.) While it is somewhat comforting that the statutory scheme does not deprive each and every youthful offender of equal protection of the laws, the scheme is clearly unconstitutional as it affects those youthful offenders who will be required to serve longer periods of incarceration than offenders who are convicted of identical conduct and who are sentenced to state prison.
The issue of good conduct credit for precommitment confinement in local facilities depends on how the question involving the Youth Authority is answered. If conduct credits are granted for time spent in an institution after imposition of sentence, then credit must be given for precommitment incarceration suffered by those unable to make bail. (People v. Sage (1980) 26 Cal.3d 498 [165 Cal.Rptr. 280, 611 P.2d 874].) If Olivas and equal protection principles require conduct credits for time spent at the Youth Authority, conduct credits must also be *175provided for precommitment incarceration. To hold otherwise is to turn aside the mandates of the Constitution. Sadly, that is what the majority have done.
The only Court of Appeal decision to the contrary was the two-to-one decision in People v. Reynolds (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 141 [171 Cal.Rptr. 461], cited by the majority. I would disapprove that decision. (See dis. opn. of Feinberg, J., 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 148.)
It is true, as the majority opinion notes, that a youthful offender, by virtue of the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 1771 which require discharge at age 25, may not have to serve the entire term if the term by chance is lengthy. However, it cannot be denied that many youthful offenders have sufficient time between their commitments and their 25th birthdays to complete their full terms of imprisonment. Thus, they are exposed to potentially longer incarceration than adult offenders sentenced to state prison.
The majority opinion attempts to seize on the verbal formulation of “maximum term" in Olivas to distinguish it from this case. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 162.) Olivas did use the phrases “maximum jail term" (17 Cal.3d at p. 239, 257), and “maximum permissible jail sentence” (id., at p. 242), but it also discussed “terms of incarceration.” (Id., at p. 257.)
No approval of the majority’s mode of analysis can be drawn from these verbal formulations used in Olivas. When Olivas was decided there were no conduct credits available when a person was sentenced to county jail or prison. Penal Code section 4019, relating to conduct credits in county jail facilities, did not take effect until January 1, 1977. (Stats. 1976, ch. 286, § 4, p. 595.) Sections 2930 through 2932 relating to prison conduct credits, did not become operative until July 1, 1977. (Stats. 1976, ch. 1139, § 276, p. 5146, amended by Stats. 1977, ch. 2, § 4, pp: 8-9, and Stats. 1977, ch. 165, §§ 37-39, pp. 661-664.)
Thus the “maximum jail term” that an adult could receive could not be reduced by conduct credits at the time Olivas was decided. The “maximum jail term” was equal to the time actually served by one sentenced to the maximum term.
A more recent and relevant legislative indication that conduct credits are appropriate for rehabilitative alternatives to a prison sentence may be found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 3201 as amended in 1980. (Stats. 1980, ch. 822, § 8, No. 6 West’s Cal. Legis. Service, p. 2617, No. 4 Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 723.) These modifications relate to the computation of maximum confinement time for criminal defendants who are committed to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC) because of narcotics addiction. The new legislative enactment in essence requires the judge to sentence any narcotics addict to a term computed in the same fashion as a defendant sentenced to state prison or committed to the Youth Authority. (Welf. & Inst, Code, § 3051, as amended by Stats. 1980, ch. 822, § 1, No. 6 West’s Cal. Legis. Service, p. 2615, No. 4 Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 721.) The imposition of that sentence is then suspended upon commitment to CRC. The maximum confinement time permitted under the subsequent commitment is set at the computed term with application of the good behavior and participation credit provisions of Penal Code section 2930 et seq. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3201, subd. (c).)
The existence of this statute creates yet another equal protection issue: May the Legislature discriminate between two groups of offenders who are being “rehabilitated” in the calculation of their maximum confinement times? No compelling state interest in discriminating between youthful offenders and narcotics addicts leaps to mind.
Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence Law’s penalty for unarmed robbery was one year to life. (Former Pen. Code, §§ 213, 671.) The penalty for forcible rape was three years to life. (Former Pen. Code, § 264.) First degree burglary was punishable by five years to life. (Former Pen. Code, § 461.) Indeed, in a sentencing system where there were many crimes punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment, a.provision for conduct credits was difficult, since there was no known maximum term calculable in years from which to subtract credits. (Cf. In re Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542, 546-547 [114 Cal.Rptr. 97, 522 P.2d 657].)