On February 2nd a panel explored the theme of juvenile justice, from a brief history of reform schools to the over 10,000 adolescents incarcerated in the California Youth Authority by the mid-90’s. The theme, Get Tough or Get Smart, explored child brain development, socioeconomic background, environmental stressors along with factors that increase the possibilities for rehabilitation and detour future criminal conduct by young offenders. What stood out was the possibility of change by both youth offenders and the institutions that incarcerate them. Today, less than 900 youth are incarcerated in CYA and more counties are using restorative justice models to address youth crime. Innovative programs like the Huckleberry Community Assessment and Referral Center in San Francisco evaluate individual needs of youth offenders and offer solutions that reduce recidivism rates and strengthen the ties between the child and the community. As a former youth offender and one of the panelists, I can say that I made a rational decision in an irrational situation. Youth crime and poverty are parallel functions of society; it doesn’t excuse criminal conduct but at the very least we should recognize the transitory qualities of youth and make every effort to correct mal behavior rather than just punish.
——-
Felix Lucero is an activist working in numerous self-help and community service programs, and a former youth offender.
Dan Macallair, mentioned in the panel, will also speak at our upcoming California Correctional Crisis: Realignment and Reform conference, March 21-22, at the State Building.
We want to remind our readers that the California Correctional Crisis conference will be held March 21-22 at the California State Building in downtown San Francisco!
Among our featured speakers will be Senator Mark Leno, exiting CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate, and former Warden of San Quentin Jeanne Woodford. Many other speakers, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, victims rights advocates, probation and parole officers, sheriffs, doctors, and formerly incarcerated activists, will illuminate various aspects of our correctional crisis.
We offer MCLE credits to lawyers and would love to have you with us!
This evening I attended a town hall event with Senator Mark Leno and other guests. The event focused on criminal justice reform in California, but most of the time was spent discussing San Francisco’s policies and practices. It was, for the most part, a happy occasion, with plenty of opportunity to celebrate San Francisco’s sensible approach to law enforcement and corrections.
Senator Leno opened by giving some historical background. Ten years ago, when he started chairing the Public Safety Committee on the Assembly, California was spending 5.3% of its budget on corrections. That rose to 11% pre-realignment. But we’ve turned a corner. In 2014, this figure will be lowered to 7%. And, despite not incarcerating as many people (actually, being the county that incarcerates the least amount of people!), San Francisco is experiencing record low rates of violent crime. How are we doing this without recurring to mass incarceration?
There are a few things that are in the works. The unsuccessful attempt to reclassify simple possession, a misdemeanor, as an infraction, might be resuscitated. We’re beginning to make use of medical parole (trying to save $150 million dollars spent on health costs and security costs involving treatment of inmates who can’t take care of their basic needs, some of whom are actually comatose.)
The main achievement has been the enactment of SB 678, the counterpart to AB 109, which creates community corrections. Shifting the responsibility for the post-sentence phase to the counties was accompanied by a shift in approach. Wendy Still, the Chief Probational Officer, spoke of her 26 years of experience in corrections and of moving to the counties to make a difference before people come to state prison. New admissions to prison are now down 37% statewide, and 47% in San Francisco, which always held the lowest prison rates and has reduced them now even further. The probationers, now addressed as clients, are no longer perceived to require surveillance and supervision, but rather services to help them get their lives on track. The system of incentives has been modified so that reduction in recidivism makes a difference. The money that counties received upfront to set up SB 678 – $45 million in federal stimulus grants – yielded &180 in correctional savings.
David Onek from UC Berkeley’s center on criminal justice mentioned the unique nature of San Francisco’s criminal justice apparatus and the remarkable collaboration between its different agencies. While it is, he said, too early for a realignment report card, it seems that San Francisco was well ahead of the curve for a long time.
Jeff Adachi talked about the work that still needed doing: Fixing the racial disparity in San Francisco’s correctional institutions and seriously improving our reentry services. One measure taken toward the latter is Clean Slate, which helps folks with convictions start anew and put their lives on track.
Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said that San Francisco jails are remarkable in that they are undercrowded. He also spoke of his wish to be the first sheriff to request less beds, or to rebuild dilapidated institutions with less beds than they had in the first place.
Commander John Murphy of the SFPD talked about the collaboration between the city’s different agencies, and of the effective reduction in violent crime (16% less shootings.) The focus is on Anthony Braga‘s hot spots – apparently, 50% of all violent crime in the city happens in 2% of its geographical area, which allows the police to focus their efforts in this area, involve community organizations, and shift the attention away from low-level drug offending (arrests for drug offenses have gone down from 50-100 a day to less than 10.)
It was a self-congratulatory evening, but rightly so; San Francisco has much to take pride in. And, as a side note, it was rather delightful to see a large contingent of the awesome United Playaz in the audience. So glad to see young people politically involved.
Dear readers – this post is more of a personal reflection than a news item. I hope you will forgive the indulgence.
As you know, I’m in the process of putting together a benefit concert for SAFE California. I posted a link to the event page on Facebook, and invited everyone I could think of who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. I hesitated to invite folks who disagreed with the message, but figured that I would be inclusive in the invitations and allow people to make up their own minds as to whom they would like to support.
A Facebook friend who is a former student declined the invitation and posted the following, verbatim:
“I would rather perform a labotomy [sic] on myself with a rusty butter knife than support this idiotic cause.”
After the initial personal shock – I think highly of my former student and our interactions in school had always been respectful despite our deep disagreements about criminal justice policy – I started thinking a bit about the pros and cons of framing issues through the broad, but shallow, prism of cost.
What the death penalty debate was in the European Enlightenment era – and should have been here – was a debate about the limited powers of the state, about proportionality in punishment, about retributivist and utilitarian punitive goals. We could fundamentally disagree on those perspectives, but all opinions could be heard and respected, and we would have a deep understanding of where our disagreements lay. I might not be a believer in retributivism, and I might think that many victims just suffer more through the capital punishment appellate process, but I understand why people value retributivism on a philosophical level, and I also understand that some victims do feel closure after the person who murdered their loved ones is executed. I still think the death penalty is rotten policy that has no place in modern life in its present form, but I don’t think that those who disagree with me are out of their minds.[1] Nor do I think we’re nearly done with that aspect of the debate.
In some ways, shifting the debate to issues of cost and technologies ameliorates these fundamental disagreements about the moral and ethical aspects. We don’t have to talk about human rights or retribution or victims’ feelings, because we can talk about money.
But money doesn’t make those big issues go away. It just buries them deep underground, so we can avoid discussing the real issues. And so, we lose our practice in respectfully debating our positions, our civil discourse muscles atrophy, and when we do lash out – usually on the Internet, because we’re oh-so-polite race to face – the rudeness and disrespect are overwhelming.
I understand the power of the fiscal argument. After all, I’m writing a book about the power of the fiscal argument and the immense systemic transformation it is already generating. It can convince conservative folks who believe in fiscal prudence to swing back the punitive pendulum, and it has already convinced many. But I think it’s an open question whether we’re paying a dear price for it. We’re giving up the opportunity to have a serious, thorough public debate about a fundamental moral question, and by doing so, we’re keeping, and perhaps deepening, our resentment and possibly hatred of our fellow Californians (those behind bars and those who disagree with us, regardless of where we stand.)
Perhaps the money argument isn’t as shallow as it seems. American independence started off with a quibble about empowerment and representation, but it was framed as a tax debate. We often use money as a proxy for values; as in, how much we are willing to spend on various causes and services represents how we feel about the order of social priorities. In that respect, attending a fundraiser for a cause is a proxy for supporting that cause. The problem is, though, that it isn’t the same. While money indicates our support of a cause, discussions of money don’t explain why we support it. We are impoverished in intangible way by creating a shallow discourse to appeal to the heart of the consensus. And in the process, we relegate our interactions with our fellow human beings to two categories: Either we agree on superficial issues that we don’t care about. or we’re at each other’s throats without respect or dignity over things we do care about.
I would like to live in a world in which I can have immense disagreements with others and argue with them passionately while not losing sight of the humanity and dignity of the other party to the conversation, and I know that my former student (who graciously apologized after I pointed out that we could disagree without being rude) would like to live in that world as well. And I want that world to exist outside my classroom (which is a small start.).
What do you think? Which of the other party’s arguments in the death penalty debate are you willing to respect, if not agree with?
————————————–
[1] There are some debates – very few, for me – in which I can see no merit whatsoever to the other party’s position. Same sex marriage is a good example. But the death penalty does not fall into that category for me.
Join CCC staff and local musicians and actors in an evening of music and readings. All proceeds go to SAFE California, a ballot initiative to replace the death penalty with life without parole.
Where? San Francisco Community Music Center, 544 Capp Street
When? May 26, 8pm
Tickets $15 ($10 with student ID).
See you there!
Tomorrow is a national day of action to stop mass incarceration.
Events in Southern and Northern CA:
Tomorrow, March 22 at 9:30 am, the Senate Budget Sub-committee for Public Safety will be hearing testimony on the Governor’s juvenile justice realignment proposal. The location is Room 113.
Join the Association for Criminal Justice Research for its 75th Semi-Annual Conference March 22-23 at the Lion’s Gate Hotel in Sacramento (McClellan Campus). The theme is Examining Realignment: How Will We Know if it’s Working? Speakers include: Matt Cate, Diane Cummins, sheriffs, chief probation officers, DAs and judges, representatives from the LAO, PPIC, RAND, the Senate and many other organizations. For complete program information, scholarship applications, and registration, please contact Rebecca Blanton at rblanton@library.ca.gov.