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