As expected, Governor Schwarzenegger’s call to legalize marijuana did not generate a wall-to-wall consensus. One organization that rejects the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana is DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), which published today a piece in which they argue that marijuana is too harmful to be decriminalized:
“Legalization is not a path we want to pursue,” Dr. Kar added. “This is sending a message that use of marijuana is okay. If marijuana is legalized, people and especially young people, will tend to look at it and think, ‘Well, if it’s legal, it can’t be too harmful.’ It is by no means the benign drug that some would have us think. The most complete, objective and reliable scientific evidence is entirely in the other direction. We would run the risk of having a rise in a sicker and nonproductive population, which would be further detrimental to the state’s economy, if more people were to begin using marijuana.”
These concerns bring up a host of questions, some of which have to do with the medical assessment of harm stemming from marijuana abuse (read more about that debate in Eric Schlosser’s Reefer Madness), and some of which have to do with behavioral economics; namely, whether a change in legal status would lead more people to use marijuana. This last complex question has been the focus of a variety of studies on drug usage deterrence, including the masterful work of Rob MacCoun and Peter Reuter, who also draw parallels from other vices.
Since the death penalty was abolished for juveniles in Roper v. Simmons, public debate has shifted to the issue of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles. The most recent news on this come from the California Senate Committee, which, according to the Chron, approved Senator Yee’s bill to eliminate LWOP for juveniles and substitute it for sentences of 25 years to life.
The bill would overturn a component of Proposition 115, a tough-on-crime ballot initiative passed by voters in 1990. The legislation pits law enforcement groups, which argue that there are teens who commit such horrendous crimes that they should spend the rest of their lives in prison, against some child psychiatrists and religious groups, which argue that teens’ brains are still developing and even those who kill should be given a chance at redemption. Parole would be granted only to inmates who convinced both the state’s parole board and governor that they deserve to be released.
Those interested in more information about the special problems concerning juveniles on LWOP might find interest in a PBS debate on the matter, or in the Frontline documentary When Kids Get Life.
Our recent posts and discussion of the budget cuts made me think more generally about how the financial crisis can be an opportunity to reverse the punitive pendulum. My op-ed in the San Francisco Bay Guardian offers some ideas in that direction, which may not be new to readers of this blog. I hope we’ll be able to rise to the occasion and make the most of what is a very dire situation.
In order to fight the 3,600 anticipated job cuts, CCPOA launches a statewide poll, whose findings they present on their website. They report that “[w]hile some recent polls have found initial support for cuts, our poll probed deeper to learn that voters want to cut the fat, not the muscle.”
Among their findings, as cited from the poll:
54% do not want to cut the pay and benefits for correctional officers
65% do not want to lay off correctional officers
62% support reducing the growth of administration costs in corrections
63% support eliminating the 400 planners hired under the Governor’s doomed prison reform legislation who have been spending millions planning for prisons that have not been built nor will they be built for decades
The poll, while representing CCPOA’s mobilization (and understandable desperation) to fight the cuts, seems to have been framed and conducted in a way that undermines any conclusions to be drawn from the results. I am unclear on whether the quotes above the pie charts in the diagrams are the questions asked on the poll. If they are, they have been articulated in a non-neutral way that has probably contributed to yielding these particular results (““California has one of the worst inmate to correctional officer ratios in the nation. Laying off officers in our prisons will make prisons more violent and will increase the number of assaults on the remaining officers. We should not cut the number of officers in our prisons as a way to save money.”) Also, it doesn’t seem to be the case that respondents have been offered the choice of other cuts, such as rehabilitative programs, parole, or re-entry. As much of the new research on public punitiveness suggests, when the public is offered such options, it becomes far less punitive. Read all about it in this fabulous book, edited by Julian Roberts et al. This sort of research needs to be done carefully and thoughtfully, and I would encourage lawmakers in Sacramento not to take this particular poll results seriously when making decisions regarding the budget cuts. There may be excellent reasons not to lay off so many prison guards, but this poll is not one of them.
Yesterday, the Sentencing Commission Bill, in its amended shortened version, passed its third reading at the Assembly (50 ayes, 29 noes). The breakdown by assembly members is here. If I’m not mistaken (and readers with more legislative savvy are welcome to correct me), the bill will now pass to the Senate hands.
Earlier this month, we reported on the Sentencing Commission Bill’s move to the suspense file. The bill has passed on the committee (12 ayes, 5 nos) and is moving on to a third reading at the Assembly. Perhaps this reflects the wish for a more systematic alternative to the threatened mass-releases to relieve overcrowding, but your guess is as good as mine.
Incidentally, I am posting this from the Law and Society Annual Meeting in Denver, where I just had the chance to see Susanne Mason‘s fantastic documentary Writ Writer, about Fred Cruz, the inmate who started the avalanche that would end in the Ruiz v. Estelle case, which revolutionized the cruel, slavery-like Texas prison system. It is absolutely fantastic and I strongly recommend it. More on the film here.
For some more reactions on the budgetary issue, and how prison cuts fit into the picture, here are a few things worth reading:
The SF Bay Guardian political blog features Just A Guy’s perspective on how a policy of early releases with no rehabilitation programs to speak of is destined to fail.
And Jonathan Simon, blogging on Governing Through Crime, is urging Gov. Schwarzenegger to fire his wife.
Reading the San Francisco Chronicle these days is like watching a traffic accident about to happen. The budget disaster is so alarming that every day brings news of future depressing decrees and policies.
— $750 million from the University of California and California State University systems, bringing the total reduction over two fiscal years to nearly $2 billion.
— $10.3 million – Eliminate all state general fund spending for UC Hastings College of Law.
— $173 million – Eliminate new Cal Grants.
— $70 million – Eliminate general fund support for state parks, potentially closing 80 percent of them.
— $247.8 million – Eliminate the Healthy Families program, which provides health care to nearly 1 million poor children.
— $1.3 billion – Eliminate the CalWorks program, which primarily helps unemployed single mothers find jobs.
— $809 million – Release nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenders one year early, and reduce the Corrections Department’s contract work, rehabilitation and education programs.
Distressed as I am about the prospect of irrational cuts of all general fund spending to my home institution, which produces tomorrow’s nation’s foremost judges, policymakers, public interest lawyers, and business entrepreneurs (and thus extinguishing hope that we can invest enough in their education to produce people capable of solving the problems generated by today’s policymaking!) I think there’s a bigger lesson to be learned here. My concern is that the bottom line regarding prison releases will generate a public outcry that will gear discussion in a nonproductive way.
You see, everything is connected, just like in Edward Lorenz‘s much-quoted (and misquoted) chaos theory maxim, according to which the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas.I’m sure there are many voters and Chron readers who are being exposed, perhaps for the very first time of their lives, to the realities of the imprisonment project in California and how it directly affects their lives, their taxes, and their children’s education. For many years, since the passage of Prop 13, Californians have mistakenly thought that keeping taxes low and guaranteeing money for education had nothing to do with the invisible world of prisons. If you think about it, that is a bit like children who close their eyes, wishfully believing that what is out there does not exist if you cannot see it. So, many Californians may be finding out that many other Californians, who had been appearing and disappearing in their world, were held in massive, expensive institutions, and moreover – financing this institutions, in a world of scarce resources, is something to be considered, not ignored.
Prisons in California are not butterflies in Brazil, and their impact on our lives and wallets is much more direct than the connections in chaos theory. The sooner we understand that non-punitive cuts need to be made (albeit intelligently and after careful planning), the less we have to eat our future as a State, which relies on enough well-educated and skilled scientists, engineers, politicians, and, yes, lawyers.
The latest news on this come from Just A Guy, an unusual blogger from an unusual location on the SF Bay Guardian, whose other knowledgeable and intelligent recent posts have been highlighted here before. I really recommend reading what he has to say about this; a reminder that sometimes thinking out of the box is cheaper, and not more harmful to public safety.
