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