Ten months after California voters approved a proposition allowing thousands of prison inmates to apply for early release, a debate is still raging over who ought to be freed.

Proposition 57 left it to prison officials to clearly identify which crimes deemed nonviolent would qualify and how an inmate’s criminal history would affect eligibility. The public could weigh in during a 45-day comment period this summer — and boy, did they.

More than 8,500 people threw in their two cents, in writing and at a public hearing in Sacramento last week. Now, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is sorting through bulging email boxes and stacks of letters from crime victims, inmates, prosecutors and reformers.

Meanwhile, under emergency regulations, prison officials have already notified prosecutors across California of more than 1,800 inmates who have applied for early parole. No figures are available until later this month on the number of inmates whose applications have been denied, approved or have actually been released. But a snapshot of the situation in two urban counties in Northern California shows relatively few people are being granted early parole, though it is impossible to tell if the trend will continue.

In Santa Clara County, only six out of 40 inmates — or 15 percent — will be released early. In Sacramento County so far, it’s even fewer — only 9 percent — six out of 65.

But that’s no solace to Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, a leading critic of Proposition 57, which was overwhelmingly approved last year. Schubert — unlike Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen — has opposed the release of all prisoners from her county so far.

Among them was Kenneth Jay Peoples. He has served eight years and 10 months of his 15-year sentence for drug possession and helping to cover up a vehicular homicide committed by someone he knew. Last month, the parole board deemed him a low risk for future violence since his last violent conviction was in 1986 when he took a plea bargain for voluntary manslaughter to spare himself a possible murder rap. The board also cited his good conduct in prison.

That doesn’t sit well with Ken Scheidegger, legal director of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Foundation, who opposed Proposition 57 and is concerned about the early releases.

“People got the idea a few years ago that prisons were full of harmless people,” Scheidegger said. “That is a widespread popular misconception.”

But proponents note that Proposition 57 was the third time since 2012 that voters overwhelmingly opted to ease California’s tough-on-crime laws to enhance rehabilitation, stop the revolving door of crime and prevent federal courts from indiscriminately releasing inmates to reduce prison overcrowding.

“Prop. 57 is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” said Benee Vejar, an organizer with the civil rights group Silicon Valley De-Bug. “It’s asking for an early parole hearing and another chance.’’

Prison inmate Christopher Eaton is among those in Santa Clara County who will get that chance. His original sentence was not immediately available, but he has served three years and eight months for transporting narcotics and possession of meth while out on bail and on probation. His criminal history dates back 12 years, including two prior strikes for residential burglary and persistent meth sales. But the parole board noted he had no violent history and a good prison record, including working as a camp firefighter.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has until Sept. 20th to develop the regulations, but it can ask for a 90-day extension.

The debate over the Proposition 57 regulations is being fought along similar battle lines as the fight over the initiative itself.

Advocates, including Human Rights Watch, want prison officials to consider as many people as possible for early release. Law enforcement officials want to restrict who is eligible and change how the decisions are made.

Both sides are calling for more rehabilitation programs. The state recently boosted the prison system’s rehab budget by $137 million.

“We cannot repair the criminal justice system on the cheap,” said Rosen, the Santa Clara County district attorney. “If we want to improve the outcomes from prison, then we will need to change the experience of being in prison.”

Opponents’ chief complaint is that the initiative promised voters that only nonviolent inmates would be eligible for release. But under the existing regulations, certain violent offenders are eligible once they have completed their prison term for the violent felony, but are still serving time for a nonviolent felony they were also convicted of. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also raised questions about the provision.

On the other hand, Proponents want to expand the pool of inmates. Currently, about 4,000 inmates with third strikes whose last offense was nonviolent are barred from applying for early parole. Yet according to the CDCR’s own public safety risk evaluations, nonviolent third-strikers are more than three times more likely to qualify as low risk than the currently eligible prisoners.

But opponents claim crime will rise under Proposition 57, a warning they have sounded since 2011 when Gov. Brown and the Legislature began scaling back the emphasis on incarceration in response to a federal court order about prison overcrowding and inhumane healthcare. Opponents point to the fact that violent crime in 2016 rose in the state — by 4.1 percent — unlike in the country as a whole. However, proponents note California’s violent crime rate remains comparable to levels seen in the late 1960s. And property crime was down 2.9 percent and remained lower than it was in 2010, before the reforms began. California’s violent crime rate also remains comparable to levels seen in the late 1960s.

Several law-enforcement officials are also joining the chorus of concerns: Early parole applications are subject to a paper review, rather than a parole hearing; prosecutors only have 30 days to prepare a recommendation; only inmates may appeal the board’s decision; and police are cut out entirely.

“My rank and file are on the front lines — they’re the ones who have to encounter these individuals once they’re on the streets,” San Jose police Chief Eddie Garcia said. “How these people will be eligible for parole certainly wasn’t transparent to me. Why is it not public? What is being done differently at the (state prison) level to give me confidence that these people will return to community and not be recidivists?”