Who can solve California’s prison overcrowding problem?

PATRICK NIEMEYER

Google "California prison riots" and you will drown in the results from the last few months alone. It may be depressing that such violent outbursts have almost become the norm, but that’s the tip of the iceberg. As many as one inmate dies every week from inadequate health care, and testimonies compare prison life to life in a third-world country. Opinions vary on what must be done, but a consensus exists on one point: these problems are caused by an overcrowded prison system.

One plan proposed last June calls for the building of 10,000 new prison beds for medical care. Unfortunately, this plan would cost $8 billion, and Governor Schwarzenegger claims that the state legislature will not provide him with the $250 million necessary for the initial payment. After controversy arose over the potentially prohibitive costs, the plan’s architect, a receiver (someone appointed by a court to manage a bankrupt system) named Clark Kelso, drew up a 5,000 bed plan that would cost only $4 billion. However, with the the state’s present financial woes, paying even that amount will be difficult.

Gov. Schwarzenegger’s indirect refusal to pay the $250 million has created hot political waters as he now faces contempt of court charges in federal court. Contempt of court charges sometimes result in jail time, though the federal judge who reinstated the charges said he was only interested in financial penalties. Schwarzenegger’s lawyers argue that Kelso’s plan violated federal law, and that it was unconstitutional for the court to appoint him at all. Schwarzenegger has said he will take this case to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

While the courts may debate Schwarzenegger’s decisions, the fact remains that any spending must be carefully considered in a state with a $42 billion deficit. That’s why Kelso has suggested a massive, statewide cut in "wasteful" prison expenses (like the practice of sending officer-escorted prisoners into the community for care), claiming it could save up to $500 million each year–-more than enough to pay for the 10,000 beds in the long run.

Some are less convinced that Kelso’s plan is cost-effective. Lisa Page, a spokeswoman for Gov. Schwarzenegger, spoke of "excesses included in the receiver’s construction plan," though she did not offer specifics. In addition, the $8 billion figure can be a bit misleading, as the bonds needed to pay for it would accrue up to $6 billion in interest in the 25 years it could take to make up for that spending. Kelso’s reforms before his June proposal could also be seen as extravagant, such as increasing some doctor salaries up to $250,000 a year while hiring still more.

The background legal battle is fundamentally an example of states’ rights versus human rights. Schwarzenegger and his supporters feel that the courts are imposing upon the sovereignty of the governor’s office and the legislature, whereas others feel that since prisoners are being denied basic rights, drastic action is necessary, including forcing the state to act.

The criticism leveled against Kelso’s plan, however, is nothing compared to another proposal: the release of 57,000 inmates, roughly one-third of the state’s total prison population. Considering how overworked the parole system is, this could mean sacrificing the drug tests and mandatory searches that some say prevent recidivism. Said Chino Police Chief Stan Stewart: "These individuals who have worked their way into the prison system by repeatedly victimizing innocent people will be granted total anonymity and not have the regulations in place that will dissuade them from returning to criminal behavior." With 66 percent of parolees returning to prison within two years of their release, California’s recidivism rate is the nation’s highest. If Stewart is correct, this idea could make a bad situation worse.

But the overcrowding problem must be solved somehow. 174,000 prisoners are being housed in a system designed for barely half that. The prison population has steadily risen over the past 30 years, possibly due to the state’s controversial "three strikes" policy, which can result in life sentences for minor offenses if the perpetrator has two prior convictions. Many believe California’s Determinate Sentencing Law, which requires inmates to be paroled after a set period of time is in desperate need of reform, as it places criminals on the street who are still dangerous and unprepared to function in society. "It is a vicious cycle that keeps prisons overcrowded, dangerous criminals on the street and increases crimes," said one opinion writer. The alternative is to allow a parole board to decide if the prisoner has been rehabilitated. If prisoners know they can be released ahead of time with good behavior, they will also have an incentive to reform.

When the California prison population declined in the year 2000 (the first such drop in 23 years), experts credited the decline to some of the same things that people believe could help now: better resources for parole officers, a system that rehabilitates rather than simply punishing, and preparing inmates for functioning in society before asking them to do so. The legal battle with the Governor’s Office could reach the Supreme Court, but both sides have the same ultimate purpose: to repair a faulty corrections system. Perhaps citizens will know reform has been successful when riots are again a rarity.

Tags :