The Future

The problem surrounding the prison debate and the solutions to it need to be extremely large in scope. There are budgetary concerns, civil rights concerns, recidivism concerns, legislative concerns, and population concerns surrounding the prison topics. Dealing with every issue at the same time is more than just a challenge.

We know our prison system is consuming roughly ten percent of the entire California budget [1] and is trying to expand with the addition of new convicts daily. Currently there is no way around spending billions of dollars to fix the situation. Prisons have tried by converting buildings such as gymnasiums into large unsecured dormitories, and now they have reached their limits.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) cite that they have a “lack of adequate prison and jail space, as well as correctional staff” [2], which is adding to the rising cost of corrections. Without enough correctional staff, employees need to work overtime every week in order to ensure that their job is getting done. More correctional staff would reduce the need of paying for overtime benefits and would save us money in the long run. However, building more prisons would only add to the budget. AB 900, which is the bill that allowedCalifornia to transfer prisoners out of state [3], was also designed to create more beds in jails, prisons, and mental health facilities. The state “authorized the issuance of $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds in two phases to support the construction of 53,000 new [these] beds”. “Unfortunately, AB 900 has been held up by unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape” [4] and has done very little for correctional facilities.

Rather than spending billions of dollars on building new prisons, California should continue to transfer inmates to other facilities out-of-state. The bulk of the taxpayer’s money should then be invested in drug rehabilitation, educational, occupational, and other training programs within prisons. Currently the CDCR doesn’t have the means to fund effective rehabilitation programs for inmates and parolees [2]. “An estimated 70 percent of the juvenile justice population suffer from learning disabilities, and 33 percent read below the fourthgrade level.” [5] If Californians can focus on lowering recidivism by means of rehabilitating criminals, the overcrowding issue will attend to itself. Ideally, the issues with Three Strikes will fade as inmates who want to avoid further prison time will have the means to do so when they are released. With less people being held for extensive lengths of time, corrections wouldn’t need to worry about medical costs as much as they do currently.

The rehabilitation programs would not be inexpensive by any means. However, if California is willing to invest toward reducing recidivism, it can provide for a more productive population overall. Ex-convicts who work and pay taxes do much more than ex-convicts who reoffend and are eventually placed back into prisons. The costs would justify themselves by the success of the new programs. Rather than throwing money away along side of our prisoners, we can do what the CDCR was originally designed to do, rehabilitate.

[1] Fourth Quarter 2008 Facts and Figures. (2009). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation website: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/Adult_Operations/docs/Fourth_Quarter_2008_Facts_and_Figures.pdf

[2] California Correctional Peace Officers Association. (January, 2010). CCPOA on Prison Reform. Accessed (April 19, 2010) from: http://www.ccpoa.org/issues/ccpoa_on_prison_reform/

[3] California State Senate Republican Caucus. (April, 2008). Briefing Report: The Prison Overcrowding Crisis - AB 900 One Year Later. Accessed (April 19, 2010) from: http://cssrc.us/publications.aspx?id=4083&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

[4] Runner, G., Spitzer, T. (July, 2008). A Look at AB 900 One Year Later... NOTHING. Accessed (April 19, 2010) from: http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2008072410585455

[5] Losen, D., Wald, J. (2003). Defining and Redirecting a School-to-Prison Pipeline. Accessed (April 19, 2010) from: http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/excerpt/74/07879722/0787972274.pdf

The Great Debate

While the prison debate hasn’t received as much attention as it deserves, solutions are being debated between the parties. Unfortunately, politicians have held the popular stance of being tough on crime for many years. As we can see, what is popular isn’t always a good thing. Three Strikes was developed through the initiative process and passed by popular vote. Politicians in kind have made similar stances, knowing that tough crime policies are very popular. Restrictive sentencing laws that ensure criminals serve a set amount of time regardless of the circumstance have helped to modify and add to the three strikes law. Now the problem has grown out of hand. Politicians are now becoming aware of the problems their popular policies have created.

One of the solutions proposed would reduce the prison overcrowding by “decreasing the penalties for minor drug offences and other victimless crimes” [1], which is the result of Three Strikes type laws. Drug offenders and “victimless crime” offenders who receive felonies also receive strikes. Once they receive those strikes they stay on the record and potentially put the offender in an extended prison term. In order to circumvent changing the Three Strikes law, legislatures can fix the law so that offenders never receive the strikes in the first place. Lower sentencing for lesser crimes also means a faster turn around time for those types of offenders in prisons, which means the state spends less money to guard, feed, and treat each of those offenders.

Conversely, politicians still with the ever still popular tough on crime stance would prefer that prisoners be transferred out of state to other prison facilities. Criminals are criminals because they have broken the social contract and should complete their debt to society. "We must give the Governor all of the tools necessary to deal with the prison overcrowding problem including amending laws to make it easier to transfer prisoners out-of-state," [2]. By lessening the punishment on certain crimes, offenders have more incentive to recommit. By sending our criminals to other facilities out-of-state we share the burden with other states that have more prison space. California pays the out-of-state prisons for the bed space, and the out-of-state prisons continue at or below operating capacity with minor changes. It essentially works out as a win-win situation for both states.

Both policies do address the problem, however, neither does so efficiently. Lowering sentencing terms goes against the nature of the criminal justice system, and transferring to out-of-state prisons is still essentially a short-term solution. At the rate we are incarcerating and detaining offenders our prison overflow will continue to overflow the other state prisons. While lowering sentences might curb the overflow issue, it doesn’t solve it. Offenders and recidivists will have greater turn around time from prison to streets. It provides an incentive to commit crimes rather than training them to work within society. Both solutions appear to only be paper thin bandages over an issue requiring surgical resurrection.

[1] California Democratic Party. (January, 2008). Criminal Justice Policy Issues. Accessed (April 14, 2010) From: http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.1192605/k.A535/Criminal_Justice.htm

[2] California Republican Party. (March, 2007). Legislative Republicans Call For Immediate Action In Dealing With Prison Overcrowding. Accessed (April 14, 2010) From: http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/press_release_42.htm

False Hopes

A common solution to the overcrowding issue and one that has even been supported by a current candidate for governor is the idea of building more prisons. As mentioned previously the system is burdened, there are roughly 170,000 inmates who are being stuffed into prisons with grand total designed occupancy of 90,000 inmates. While measures are underway to reduce that disparity (by means of accelerated release of low-risk offenders) it is still a concern as both an ethical issue, and as an economical issue.

Proponents of building more prisons, such as Meg Whitman, state that: "(Overcrowding) is a sign that we have not invested in the infrastructure in California… We are going to have to create some capacity to invest to make sure that we have the infrastructure that we need in the next 50 years." [2] With more facilities we can ease the burden of existing prisons. They would, potentially, allow for more work programs and healthier living conditions for inmates. Better living conditions means that fewer inmates would need to be released by the federal court mandate imposed upon California last year. A mandate that “crime victim and law enforcement groups have been sounding alarms about” [1]. The fear surrounding the release of even low-risk offenders is that they will have served less time for than they should have, encouraging them to recommit. Should those criminals re-offend it would create more work for law enforcement and essentially cost the state more money rather than keeping them incarcerated.

Building more prisons does address the problem of overcrowding; however, it’s only a matter of time before the new prisons fill to beyond capacity. But more importantly, the cost introduced by increasing the amount of prisons we must fill, maintain, and secure far outweighs the benefit garnered of having more space to keep prisoners. Jerry Brown, former governor of California and current candidate for governor criticized Whitman’s proposal: “When you build more prisons, that costs money, then you put people in it, that costs money, then you have to build more hospital beds … it's gigantic.” [2]

The idea of increasing the number of state prison facilities appeals to people who want to continue to be tough on crime, those who don’t support the rehabilitation of prisoners. It is a simple solution for a complex issue, one that will not work. The cost is too high and only serves to temporarily relieve the overcrowding issue. Adding more space to incarcerate inmates is not an investment Californians need. Rather we should be investing in ways to reduce the rate of recidivism, to reduce the amount of felons that create a drain on our economy, and to improve overall public safety for all Californian citizens.

[1] Archibold, R. (March, 2010) "California, in Financial Crisis, Opens Prison Doors" New York Times, Accessed from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/us/24calprisons.html

[2]Oot, T. (March, 2010) "Meg Whitman wants to build prisons, cut other programs" Sacramento Bee, Accessed from: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/25/2631834/meg-whitman-wants-to-build-prisons.html

Lost Opportunities

Three Strikes has its fair share of issues as it applies to the prison system, but overall it has done well to reduce crime. Reoffenders are being locked away, meaning many crimes are being prevented, saving local governments millions of dollars. Yet, crimes still take place. Younger offenders are being introduced to the system every day, and those offenders will serve time for crimes they have committed. However, they will one day be released into society. Are we to trust that our young inmates will learn their lesson, on their own, from inside a prison cell? It is naive to believe that prison time is a strong enough deterrent of crime. Prisoners need some form of guidance to make them beneficial members of society when they are released. There is a reason why our recidivism rates are as high as they are.

When offenders break the law and are caught doing so, their lives are placed on hold. Time for the offender essentially stops while they are inside prisons. Jobs they may have had are lost, education ceases (if they are in school), and acquaintances continue on with their lives. Non-incarcerated people and technology changes while the incarcerated are stuck inside a controlled world. After an inmate has served their time and are released, the world outside of can seem wildly different from when they were last a part of it. Losing out on the changing environment places the inmates at a huge disadvantage when compared to non-felons in the job market. The only skills the felons have come from before they were incarcerated. Without training those skills can deteriorate or prove outdated when they are released. Felons can’t hope to compare to non-felons in the job market. Thus, jobs and opportunities are immediately limited to felons. They are left to make their own opportunities with the means they have. Often they turn to criminal activity to get by.

If prisons were to initiate more work related programs, where inmates can become trained and certified in a variety of jobs, we would see a large reduction in the amount of recidivism. “Employment also provides a stabilizing routine, occupies time that might otherwise be used for illegal activity, keeps individuals responsive to employer’s behavioral demands, and provides a nonstigmatized social role.” [1] Those felons become reincorporated into society where prison time truly does become a deterrent from crime. Studies have shown that work programs in prisons have reduced recidivism anywhere from 9% to 22% [2]. The major problem is that not all offenders care about attaining the opportunity to better themselves and the community.

Work and rehabilitation problems don’t work for everybody. Career criminals certainly wouldn’t care about job opportunities provided for them. Drug dealers, burglars, and other criminals with high risk, high reward criminal skills can easily make more in a day than a minimum wage worker does in a week. This is where the Three Strikes law does well. Those career criminals obviously have no will to rehabilitate and will continue to commit crimes. If that is their attitude, then they can be considered a menace to society and locked away with extended sentences. Not all criminals wish to make a career out of crime. By providing work opportunities in prison we can help lower recidivism rates and improve society in the long run.



[1] McKean, L., Ransford, C., (Augest, 2004) "Current Strategies for Reducing Recidivism" ImpactResearch accessed (3/17/2010) from: http://www.impactresearch.org/documents/recidivismfullreport.pdf

[2] Gaes, G. (April, 2008) "The Impact of Prison Education Programs on Post-Release Outcomes" Florida State University accessed (3/17/2010) from: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/TheEffectivenessofPrisonEducationProgramsNov_09.pdf

First Step, Three Strikes

How is it that our prisons have ended up the way they are? Simple, it’s not that we Californians are habitual criminals it’s that our laws are in place to be tough on crime. Since 1994 we have begun a hardline attack against crime. That year the Californian people passed the most significant referendum to affect the prison system of our time. It became known as the Three Strikes Law. It alone has been more responsible than anything else for the overcrowding, over-paroling, and for the overall declining stability of our prisons. The Three Strikes Law was originally designed to keep violent criminals off the street by inflating their sentences. The idea of criminals serving 25 to life sentences after two previous bouts of prison time generally means they won’t be willing, or able, to commit crimes. This idea appealed to California voters and Proposition 184, Three Strikes Law, passed by a landslide.

Three Strikes was originally intended to only target violent offenders. However, it was written so that any felon who gets a third felony or misdemeanor/wobbler on his or her record is sentenced to the lengthy punishment. It has worked. Violent felons have been removed from the streets because of this law. In 2002, a report showed that there were a grand total of two million fewer crimes over a nine year period after Three Strikes compared to the nine years before it [1]. Those same criminals are still locked away in our prisons serving 25 to life. While these offenders are off the streets the state is saving money by not having to pay costs for criminal damages associated with murder, robberies, and burglaries. Keeping those criminals off the streets saves an estimated $24 billion. The problem occurs when inmates are well into their older years. The costs of health care problems outweigh the money saved by incarceration. By the time the inmates are dependent on medical care their risk of reoffending drops significantly.

We currently have 8,400 inmates serving possible life term sentences. Of those, 1,300 are because of drug offenses and 2,500 of them are there because of a property crime [2]. This means that 3,800 of the 8,400 inmates have life sentences because of non-violent reasons. People are spending their life in prison for crimes such as stealing donuts.

In 2004, Proposition 66 aimed to reform the Three Strikes Law by redefining what constituted a serious crime deserving of life imprisonment, essentially disallowing offenders from being incarcerated for misdemeanor/wobbler offenses. It also intended to redirect drug abuse felons to treatment centers and encompass more sexual offenders under the Three Strikes Penalty [4]. Voters did not feel as though changes needed to be made to the Three Strikes Law and therefore voted it down 53% to 47%. If the measure would have passed we would have reduced the 3,800 people serving life terms on drug offenses down to a more manageable number. This would have reduced the number of people we would have had to support in their senior years. Drug offenders are particularly more expensive to keep healthy since they have already abused their bodies with harmful drugs. Our first step in fixing our prison system should be to reintroduce legislature similar to Proposition 66. Three Strikes is currently a burden and a blessing on our government, it helps keep violent offenders off the streets but also costs the state millions on nonviolent offenders. We can also extend reforms that help release terminal or elderly inmates earlier on parole. A bill or proposition like Proposition 66 with a few minor changes would allow California the benefits of locking away violent offenders while not wasting time and money on the less risky nonviolent offenders.



[1] Reynold, Mike. (2004). "3-STRIKES 1994 to 2004 A DECADE OF DIFFERENCE" Three Strikes.org Accessed (2010, Mar 1) URL: http://www.threestrikes.org/TenYearReport04.pdf

[2] Leonard, Jack. (2009, May 13) "Law Students help free three-strike offenders" Los Angeles Times. Accessed (2010, Mar 1). URL: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/local/me-threestrikes13

[3] Smarter Voter. (2004, Dec 15) "Proposition 66" Accessed (2010, Mar 2). URL: http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/66/

The Stop Gap Measure

As of January 25th 2010, California has begun its promise to reduce the prison population by 6,500 inmates by the end of the year. The plan is to give inmates extra “good time” benefits, raising the original benefits from 33% to 50% reduced time [2]. Of course, not all inmates are eligible for early release; the low-risk offenders have the priority over the other inmates. Low-risk offenders can include non-violent criminals, older criminals serving life sentences for crimes done decades ago, and inmates in occupational or educational programs.

To further reduce the burden on our criminal justice system, the lower-risk offenders will not be supervised when they are paroled. However the same legal restrictions will still apply to them; they will not be able to vote, own firearms, and they can be searched without a warrant. Not only does this measure help to reduce prison population, it reduces recidivism and the work load on our parole agents. The law previously made all released convicts serve at least 3 years of parole, now only the higher risk convicts will be under the more watchful eyes of parole agents. Figures now estimate that they will now be responsible for an average of 48 parolees instead of 70 they had to manage before [1]. Parole agents can now focus on making sure the more dangerous parolees stay inline. As mentioned before, it helps to reduce recidivism by lowering the risk that a parolee will not be sent back to prison on a technicality.

Yet this is still only a stop gap measure, early released inmates are stigmatized to employers. With the economy the way it is, it is already very hard for the average person to find a suitable job. Those with the added taint of convict will have a much harder time [3]. Those lucky enough to get into an occupational or educational program in prison will stand a better chance in obtaining a livable salary. Those who can’t will most likely end up back in prison with even less hope of another chance.

The state estimates that these measures will save them roughly $1 billion over the next year. However, time will only tell how effective the new law will be, currently, it appears like a step forward in solving our immediate problem. And although our prison system will still be will over flooded, it buys legislature more time to develop long term solutions. After all we have at least another 160,000 more inmates to work with.

Associated Press. (2010, Jan 22). "California to Reduce Prison Population by 6,500 Inmates" Fox News Network. accessed (2010, Feb 22) URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583591,00.html

Furlio, A. (2010, Feb 20). "Judge switches, applies good-time release credits to jail inmates" Sacramento Bee. accessed (2010, Feb 23) URL: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/20/2551061/hed-here.html#Comments_Container

Tahmincioglu, E. (2010, Feb 17) "Unable to get jobs, freed inmates return to jail" MSNBC. accessed (2010, Feb 22) URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35263313/ns/business-careers/

The Problem at Hand

Today in California we are facing an impending crisis which threatens our way of life. In short, our prison system is overloaded. As of the end of the fourth quarter in 2008, California had over 300,000 offenders in the CDCR (California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) system. Of those 300,000; about 170,000 were actual inmates serving time within institutions. The estimated cost of those inmates was $8,330,000,000; the budget proposed by the CDCR for the following year hovered around $10 billion. [1] The systemic problem Californian prisons are having is the high rate of recidivism; which as of April 2008 floated around 54%. [2] We are spending roughly $49,000 per year, per inmate only to find that they are committing more crimes and returning to prison. The more people fill our prisons the more resources out of the state budget they take up. If the cost continues to rise at $2 billion per year the entire system will crash the government budget altogether.

The budget isn’t the only concern Californians should have about their prisons. While the prison system is well underfunded, it is grossly overpopulated. Laws such as the Three Strikes have been used to put mild offenders away for life in addition to the violent offenders the law was intended for. This situation has created serious security issues within our prisons. Since prisons can’t afford new buildings, many prisons such as Solano State prison have converted gymnasiums into dormitories for lower risk offenders. Inside hundreds of inmates are supervised by three to four unarmed guards – depending on the level of security, one armed guard can be assigned to watch from an elevated position – supported only by radio. The picture above gives a slight example of such a conversion.

Beyond fiscal concerns of overcrowding, the conditions for the treatment of our prisoners have been deemed cruel and unusual by federal courts. Just last year the federal courts mandated that we reduce our prison population by 40 percent. [3] Considering the federal government has had to intervene in this situation, should clue us in that it is time to get everything sorted and solved.

Of course recidivism and overcrowding can be seen as symptoms of the true problem at hand. While stop gap measures such as early release of prisoners may lighten our burden temporarily, California is still set to overfill its prisons again and again. In order to understand how to fix our prison system we have to examine the reason why it became the way it is today. This blog is intended to sort out and reveal the issues at hand and hopefully provide some insight on how to solve our prison crisis.



[1] Fourth Quarter 2008 Facts and Figures. (2009). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation website: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/Adult_Operations/docs/Fourth_Quarter_2008_Facts_and_Figures.pdf

[2] Recidivism Rates (June 13, 2008). Retrieved February 7, 2010, from California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation website: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/RECID2/RECID2d2005.pdf
[3] California may have to cut prison population by 40 percent. (February 10, 2009). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from CNN website: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/california.prisons/