Scoop: Werewolf: California's crowded prisons Scoop: Werewolf: California's crowded prisons
About Subscribe Advertise Submit News Media Tracking Feedback Login
Top Scoops
Search Scoop
WIRES:
* MOST READ
* VIDEO
Comment Homepage Comment & Opinion Archives Gordon Campbell Latest Scoops Scoop Features Scoop Video Submit Your News & Vote Submit Your Views Search NZ Jobs
Multimedia Homepage Cartoons Parliament TV Photos Scoop Video Social Media - ScoopIT Talk TV3 News Video
NZ Politics Homepage Gordon Campbell Parliament Headlines Politics Headlines Regional Headlines Parliament TV Political News Video Questions of the Day Search NZ Govt. Jobs Wellington - Lindsay Shelton
BizSciTech Homepage Business.Scoop Business Headlines Business News Video Sci-Tech Headlines SciTech News Video Weather Video Search Business Jobs Advertising Blog
World Home Page Latest Headlines World Video Most Read Search NZ Jobs World News RSS Global Economic Crisis US Voting Machines Suzan Mazur
Most Read on Scoop Business News World News Culture News Education News Health News Parliament News Politics News Regional News Sci-Tech News Scoops
All Latest Video Business Entertainment Lifestyle World National Politics Technology Sports Weather
Find related articles E-mail It Print It Scoop ItScoop }} Top Scoops }}
Werewolf: California's crowded prisonsThursday, 19 November 2009, 2:51 pm
Article: Rosalea Barker
California fails to cope with its crowded
prisons
Werewolf.co.nz September Issue
Original Article
by Rosalea Barker
Every person in prison in California
will one day be released. Take a deep breath and repeat
after me: Every person in prison in California will one day
be released. True, a tiny percentage of them will be
released from prison to their Maker--by suicide, deadly
assault, natural causes, execution, or as a result of an
accident--but all the rest will be released into society.
SEARCH NZ JOBS
Email me JOBS
Related Stories on Scoop
* Update on California's prison release conundrum 14/09/2009
* In California, Education Just Doesn't Pay 29/07/2009
* A million dollar bounty on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Blair 01/06/2009
* Stateside With Rosalea: Speechless 30/03/2009
* California hearing on Premier voting systems 18/03/2009
Results powered by search.scoop.co.nz More Related Stories }}}
It bears thinking about long and hard doesn't it? And
California has thought about it long and hard. According to
a 2007 expert panel report (pdf) commissioned
by the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR), there has been more than a dozen reports since 1990,
all recommending the same core ten reforms:
Stop sending non-violent, non-serious offenders to prison.
This particularly pertains to technical parole violators,
who could better be served in community based, intermediate
facilities.
2. Once in prison, use a standardized risk and
needs assessment tool to match resources with needs and
determine appropriate placements for evidence-based
rehabilitation programs.
3. Develop and implement more and
better work, education, and substance abuse treatment
prisoners who represent a continued public safety risk.
Move low risk prisoners to community-based facilities toward
the later part of their sentences to foster successful
reintegration and save more expensive prison-based
resources. Sub-populations, such as women, the elderly and
the sick, are ideal candidates.
6. Create a sentencing
policy commission or some other administrative body that is
authorized to design new sentencing statutes into a workable
system that balances uniformity of sentencing with
flexibility of individualization.
7. Reform California's
parole system so that non-serious parole violators are
corrections agencies that would expand sentencing options,
enhance rehabilitation services, and strengthen local
reentry systems. Suggestions have been made that include
Community Corrections Acts (to get greater funding for local
criminal justice initiatives) and a Community Corrections
Division of the CDCR charged with developing
alternatives.
9. Evaluate all programs and require that
existing and newly funded programs are based on solid
research evidence.
10. Promote public awareness so that
taxpayers know what they are getting for their public safety
investment and become smarter and more engaged about
California's prison system.
As I write this
on the last weekend of August, 2009, the California State
Assembly Speaker, Karen Bass, is trying to have a penal
reform bill currently before the Assembly rewritten so that
it will pass on Monday. The companion Senate bill squeaked
through amid much acrimonious debate on Thursday morning.
The legislation is part of a reform package requested by
Governor Schwarzenegger (R) two years ago, and is required
as part of a Budget deal to help create a $1.2 billion cut
in Corrections expenditures.
In the Senate, all Republicans opposed it, and
four Democrats voted with them--the final vote was 21/19.
Later on Thursday, the companion bill was debated even more
acrimoniously in the Assembly. It will have to be severely
gutted in order to pass--in large part because politicians
value their jobs more highly than they value reasoned debate
and reform. Assembly members can serve only three terms,
each of two years, and even those who won't be able to run
for Assembly again in 2010 but have their eye on other
elected positions don't want to go on the record as being
"soft on crime". The inclusion of a new Sentencing
Commission in the bill is particularly controversial and
will likely be dropped.
Responses from
inside the door
Besides
the proximity of the 2010 elections, which include election
of the next Governor, two other factors are reflected in the
timing of this legislation: the budget deal mentioned
earlier, in which the Governor asked the legislature to find
ways of reducing the prison population by about 27,000 in
order to save money; and a ruling by a three-judge panel of
the Federal District Court saying that, because the
inadequate health care provided by the CDCR amounts to
"cruel and unusual punishment"--forbidden by the US
Constitution--the prison population needs to be reduced by
40,000 to a mere 137 percent of CDCR's design bed
capacity.
The CDCR Secretary's response to that August
4 ruling, which gave him 45 days to come up with a two-year
prisoner number reduction plan, is available as a video here. In it, Secretary Cate refers to
the key components of the Governor's plan to reduce the
prison population: "parole reform; alternative custody,
including the use of GPS technology for our aged and infirm
inmates and inmates serving 12 months or less; incentive
credits for inmates to achieve accomplishments in prison
like a GED or a drug and alcohol program that reduce
recidivism…. We think they are sound measures that will
reduce our prison population in a safe way over time."
(GED stands for general education diploma, and is the lowest
educational requirement for anyone seeking
employment.)
The California Correctional Peace Officers
Association (CCPOA), which represents the more than 30,000
correctional peace officers working inside California's
prisons and youth facilities, and the state's parole agents
who supervise inmates after their release, also supports the
Governor's reforms, including a sentencing commission.
(Peace officer is a generic term in the US for any law
enforcement officer charged with maintaining civil peace.)
At a recent forum on California's
correctional crisis, Michael Jimenez, President of CCPOA, is
reported as saying that the current sentencing scheme is
"so bad that he could not imagine anything worse. The
CCPOA has been pushing for a sentencing commission as well,
but very disheartened with the political process around it.
It all revolves, said Jimenez, around money; there is no
political fix for the sentencing problem as long as our
policy calculations are influenced by short term,
year-to-year tactics."
It should be noted that because
of its political contribution history, the CCPOA is hugely
disliked in California. An inmate of a state prison who has
a blog on the San Francisco Bay Guardian website, in a post
entitled What should government do?, writes that
the "only rational solution to reducing the cost of
imprisoning the populace is to change the sentencing laws
and criminal code to a degree that reflects our principles
as a free society in a way that makes sense. Only when the
need for guards is lessened by a reduced need for prisons
will there actually be any ground gained on breaking the
stranglehold the CCPOA and other powerful unions have on
California." The same blogger had earlier written that
releasing low-risk prisoners early would be detrimental to
the remaining prison population because it's the low-risk
prisoners who work in support services such as kitchens and
laundries, and detrimental to California itself as low-risk
prisoners also form the backbone of the CA Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection's wildfire fighting
teams.
Responses from
outside the door
Groups
representing police officers intensely lobbied Sacramento
about the prisoner early release plans when they were first
announced as part of the Budget deal. In a June 22
Memorandum to the Legislature, the California Fraternal
Order of Police, California Narcotic Officers Association,
California Peace Officers Association, California Police
Chiefs Association, and eight groups representing police and
sheriffs in Southern California cities and counties, along
with the LA County District Attorney, said they were
"extremely concerned about the damage to public safety
that will be caused" by going ahead with the plans.
But
by July 23, the LA Times was reporting that the California Police
Chiefs Association was "very pleased" that the proposed
legislation would include home detention and target specific
offenders who behave well, are sick or have the least time
to serve, instead of the blanket release the CPCA had
feared. All that changed when the bill that is being voted
on was written to include a sentencing commission--a
concept the police adamantly oppose. Perhaps because it will
reduce the number of convictions and therefore the value of
property seized, which, according to federal law, police
forces can sell and keep the money for themselves.
The
"damage to public safety" meme articulated by the CPCA
and other organizations back in June and now being
repeatedly conjured up in the legislative debates over the
current bill is far from dead and likely never will be. It
is such an easy meme to get going. The popular image from
news reports is of parolees being returned to jail because
of new crimes they commit. Naturally, from a news
organization's point of view--the more spectacular and
gruesome the crime the better! Furthermore, because of the
extremely high numbers of parolees returned to prison in
California, the public is easily persuaded to think that the
early release of prisoners will result in thousands of newly
paroled dangerous criminals roaming the streets.
Jeffrey Lin, an assistant professor in
the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the
University of Denver, and one of the authors of this article about parole violations and
revocations in the June issue of the journal Federal
Probation, told me in a phone interview that "the proportion of prison
admissions comprised of those who've had parole revoked
has been rising, and in California, it's now around 60
percent." He was unable to provide current figures on the
numbers for each type of parole revocation, but in the
article the authors say that "Over a third (35 percent) of
all the recorded parole violations were for noncriminal, or
I thought this page was interesting because:
| re:2.21 st:0.04 fo:0 s:0.01 d:0 c:0 db:0.011 a:0.89 m:0.41 t:7.23 (f) |
| ![:-] Bot! - home](/bot/images/dsbotface1.gif ":-] Bot! - home")
