Yesterday’s New York Times reported that the Californian trend is not unique. Many states find themselves recurring to early releases, good time credits, and other mechanisms, in an attempt to save money. The interesting part of the article pertains to the backlash against early releases in Oregon and Michigan; the examples in the article are, of course, of convicted sex offenders.
RI bill to tax®ulate marijuana
Californians are trying to tax and regulate marijuana, through such measures as the Tax Cannabis 2010 ballot initiative and Assm. Tom Ammiano’s AB 2254. Meanwhile, legislators in the Rhode Island House of Representatives have also introduced a bill to legalize marijuana; text here: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText10/HouseText10/H7838.htm. H7838 would regulate marijuana wholesalers, retailers, and home-cultivators, and set a tax of $50/ounce like CA AB2254. Looks like there’s a race on to see who can begin reaping tax revenues, first: at least 6 states (California, Rhode Island, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Nevada) will consider taxing and regulating marijuana by the end of 2012. H7838 specifically invokes corrections/enforcement savings as a reason for regulating marijuana: “There were more than 847,000 arrests for marijuana offenses in the US in 2008, which is more than Rhode Island’s entire adult population.”
Justice Policy Institute Bashes Budget
Today the Justice Policy Institute issued a press release criticizing President Obama’s budget proposal. The new budget would increase funding for law enforcement and prisons, and reduce funding for alternative justice programs. JPI has released a full fact sheet, here. The text of their release follows:
Group Criticizes Obama Administration’s Budget Plan to Increase Policing and Prisons
Justice advocates disturbed by proposed $29 billion for ineffective and unfair policies
Washington, D.C. – The Justice Policy Institute released a factsheet today challenging the Obama administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 Department of Justice budget. The Administration is asking for $29.2 billion, which includes more funding for law enforcement and prisons, and reductions in spending on juvenile justice programs that have been proven to be effective at getting youth back on track for positive life outcomes. A hearing for the proposed budget was scheduled before the Congressional Budget Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science on February 11, but was delayed and is in the process of being rescheduled.
“The Administration’s rationale for dumping more money into COPS (the federal Community Oriented Policing Services program) is that we need more police while the economy improves in order to prevent crime,” stated Tracy Velázquez, executive director of JPI. “That doesn’t pass the smell test. Crime rates have been falling for the last few years and we’ve already put a billion stimulus dollars into more policing last year. If the Administration wants to buy jobs that will improve public safety, they should put that $600 million into struggling communities, schools, treatment, and social services.”
Velázquez also noted that the proposed budget will likely result in increased incarceration costs for states, with only marginal public safety benefits. This is at a time when financially-strapped states are trying to downsize prisons through such mechanisms as greater use of community supervision and more diversion programs. While Velázquez praised funding for the Second Chance Act, which helps formerly-incarcerated people with their transition back to the community, she added, “More money should be focused on programs that help to keep people out of the criminal and juvenile justice systems in the first place.” These alternatives include community-based prevention and early intervention programs for youth, education and employment training, and substance abuse and mental health treatment services.
Some of the key findings in the newly-released fact sheet http://www.justicepolicy.org/content-hmID=1811&smID=1581&ssmID=87.htm include:
* Byrne Justice Assistance Grants: JPI found that while the $500+ million proposed for this program can be used for prevention and education, in reality most money goes to law enforcement. Research has shown that increased law enforcement results in the least-effective solution-higher drug imprisonment rates-while this money could be more effectively spent on community drug treatment.
* Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Funding: The Administration is requesting $600 million in hiring and retention grants for police officers, purportedly anticipating a rise in crime as the economy recovers. Such increased policing is likely to have a concentrated impact on communities of color, who are already disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. JPI suggests this money would be better spent on creating jobs, housing, and treatment programs for increased public safety.
* Juvenile Justice Programs: Funding for essential juvenile justice programs has been declining for years, and the Administration is proposing a $133 million decrease this year. Evidence shows that youth who spend time incarcerated have decreased educational and employment opportunities. Currently, there are more than 90,000 youth imprisoned in the United States. Investments in prevention programs, by contrast, are associated with improved public safety and better life outcomes for youth. “At a time when the Administration can’t seem to find the time to hire someone to run the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,” stated Velázquez, “this lack of commitment to funding core programs that protect and help youth is discomfiting.”
* Drug Courts: JPI commends the federal government’s interest in pursuing treatment as an option for people with substance abuse problems as an alternative to incarceration. However, drug courts, and the criminal justice system generally, can’t and shouldn’t be used as a substitute for community-based treatment services through the public health system, where it is most effective and appropriate.
* Adam Walsh Act: Having failed to bully states with threats of funding cuts if they fail to comply with the Adam Walsh Act, the federal government is adding a “carrot” to the “stick”: $20 million to help states implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). A number of reports have found little correlation between the use of sex offender registries and keeping children safe. In addition, broad compliance with SORNA will increase the number of people who cannot meet their basic needs (housing, employment), which is a major risk factor for recidivism. Especially hard-hit are youth on registries that may be barred from pro-social activities that can have a positive impact on improving their lives and on public safety.
* Increased Funding for Prisons: Increased funding for prison beds will likely lead to higher prison populations and expenses without significantly improving public safety. In fact, most states are reducing prison populations due to the current economic crisis and are seeking more effective solutions.
“While I hesitate to grade the Administration,” concluded Velázquez, “we certainly were optimistic that it would use the research that groups like JPI have done over the years in developing its justice budget. We hope the Administration will more seriously engage the reform community in the budget process in the future so that budgets and policies will be prioritized to one day allow the United States – land of the free-to leave behind the shameful moniker of being the world’s largest jailor.”
To read JPI’s factsheet: The Obama Administration’s 2011 Budget: More Policing, Prisons, and Punitive Policies, CLICK HERE <http://www.justicepolicy.org/
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy organization that promotes fair and rational justice policies. For more information, please visit www.justicepolicy.org
NYT on Compassionate Relief puts CA in perspective
The New York Times has a story today on compassionate release for inmates who are physically or cognitively unable to present a threat to society. This paragraph stands out:
“In California, where federal judges ordered the state to cut the prison population by 40,000, three people were granted compassionate release last year. In Alabama, where prisons are at double their capacity, four sick inmates were let out on compassionate release in the 2009 fiscal year; 35 other prisoners in Alabama died while their applications were being reviewed. Since New York adopted medical parole in 1992, at the height of the AIDS crisis, 364 people have been released.”
The situation may be egregious in New York, and proportionately worst in Alabama, but by sheer quantity California’s prison crisis is most dire. What values are we pursuing, what metrics are we optimizing, by paying for incapacitated inmates to die in prison rather than at home?
LAO: Prisons v. Universities Expenditure Measure Unwise, Unflexible
More interesting items today on the Legislative Analyst’s office website: This time, LAO examines the Governor’s proposed constitutional amendment to limit correctional expenditure to 7 percent of General Fund support and to set a minimum of 10 percent for California public universities.
The report is far from enthusiastic about the proposal. While LAO supports efficiency and savings (see yesterday’s post on their recommendation to add GPS monitoring as a prison alternative), the report recommends against adopting the Governor’s proposal. As specified in the report, the measure ignores the impact of student fees on university revenue, highlights two budget items rather than examining the whole picture (thus constraining General Fund usage for a large percentage of the budget), and leaves open the question of using the increased university funding for public benefit. As to corrections, the LAO report reminds us of the principle that Frank Zimring refers to as the “correctional free lunch”: correctional expenditures are not managed solely on the state level, but actually dictated on the county level, where sentencing takes place. Moreover, as LAO points out, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary: a simple budgetary decision would suffice.
————
props to Eric Chase for sending this my way.
Meg Whitman’s Correctional Policy
As this morning’s Chron reports, Meg Whitman is currently the leading candidate in the GOP gubernatorial race. A few weeks ago we provided some information on Jerry Brown’s correctional policies. Today, we’ll take a look at Whitman’s profile on correctional issues. Her website offers the following promises to California voters:
As Governor, I will:
Strongly oppose any state or federal efforts that lead to early release of prisoners
Build new prisons to address overcrowding and seek to extend existing authority to incarcerate prisoners outside of California
Demand that the federal government accept fiscal responsibility for incarcerating the 19,000 prisoners who illegally entered the U.S.
Support the “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law”
Enforce the death penalty and other key public safety measures
Work with local law enforcement to develop effective crime prevention and rehabilitation programs that don’t jeopardize public safety
Oppose an unelected and unaccountable sentencing commission
These are irresponsible, empirically unfounded, morally reprehensible and fiscally unsound policies. I hope Ms. Whitman will reflect further on her plans to reduce government spending, and realize that corrections constitute a large portion of such expenditures.
Drug Court Humonetarianism
Reuters has a fascinating article here on drug courts, empathy, and the monetization of humanitarianism. The author discusses shifting economic priorities in the war on drugs.
Contextually, it begins with Judge Gorsalitz’s drug court in Kalamazoo, MI. The writer’s title, “America’s new touchy-feely war on drugs,” and tone suggest amusement or even contempt for the drug-court approach, but then the litany of drug war harms and legalization benefits belies a different understanding.
The piece favors Judge Aim’s Project Hope in Hawaii, which saves money by making drug treatment voluntary not mandatory, and uses penalties of short jail stays instead of reinstating full sentences. Of course, here in the City&County of SF we have Judge Albers’s Community Justice Center — for its drug court context see Prof. Aviram’s post here.
Schwarzenegger Confronts Prisons in Speech
By now some of you may have caught Governor Schwarzenegger’s State of the State speech today. The full speech can be accessed here. And, here is the Governor’s proposal, titled “Reshaping our Priorities to Shift Funding from Prisons to Universities”. Among other things, the proposal reads:
To realize cost savings in corrections, the amendment expands the authority of the California Department of Corrections and rehabilitation (CDCR) to lower costs by contracting with entities outside state government for prison operations and services. In line with the Governor’s commitment to public safety,the measure prohibits releasing prisoners early as a means of reducing costs.
Penny-Wise and Pound-Foolish
The Mayor of Newark blogs about a reentry initiative in New Jersey, emphasizing that the initiative is bipartisan and builds on broad collaboration between different political actors.
Some are quick to point out that certain provisions of the state bills would cost money at a time of tremendous fiscal strain – adding millions to the state budget in the near term. Many of these people are using this understandable concern to reflexively oppose this legislation. However, the cost of doing nothing simply leaves the tremendous expense of arrest, adjudication and incarceration to fester and grow larger and more burdensome in coming years.
We cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The time to act is now. If implemented effectively, the bills not only have the ability to pay for themselves but can provide significant savings to taxpayers in future budget years. This is not fantasy or fiction; the proof can be seen in the active bipartisan success so evident in Newark right now.
Death Row Expansion Halted!
California Treasurer Bill Lockyer is halting the issuance of bonds to pay for the Death Row expansion endorsed earlier this year by Governor Schwarzenegger. The delay is due to the efforts of Assemblyman Jared Huffman and Senator Mark Leno. The Marin Independent Journal reports:
Huffman and Leno. . . sent a letter to Lockyer on Wednesday asserting that sale of the bonds would be illegal until resolution of litigation challenging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto of budget language on conditions for financing of the project.
The language prohibited issuance of bonds until the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determined that it could lawfully double-cell condemned inmates; federal court litigation on prison overcrowding currently before a three-judge panel was resolved; and the correction department completed California Environmental Quality Act analyses for any modifications to the project.
Huffman said the governor had no authority to use the line-item veto on policy language.
This delay may be good news for death penalty activists, but its long term impact on the death penalty will depend, to a large extent, on the next administration and on the 2010 elections.