Two important events have just occurred more or less simultaneously with regard to the decrowding debate.
First, the gutted prison reform plan, that will lead to the release of 17,000 inmates and the transfer of minor parole violators to local jails, has passed and is moving forward, for the Governor’s signature.
And second, the Supreme Court has declined to grant a stay to the State with regard to the Plata/Coleman order. The State’s arguments have been rejected, albeit not on the merits (that will be decided on appeal). CDCR will therefore have to come up with a decrowding plan for 40,000 inmates by Sep. 18.
We will elaborate later on the possible connection between these two events.
It’s always refreshing to take a look at our correctional mess from the outside. Yesterday, Scott Hanson, over at Grits for Breakfast, commented on our crisis, explaining “why Texas didn’t go there“.
Ironically, California may be suffering because it’s trying to confront this problem with a Democratic majority. The turning point for Texas’ prison system came in 2003, when Republicans found themselves in charge of both chambers of the Texas Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. That year, Speaker Tom Craddick named Ray Allen from Grand Prairie House Corrections chair, and Allen was immediately confronted with projections that Texas’ already full prisons would require billions in new construction to keep up their astronomical growth rate.
[R]educing incarceration by diverting offenders to probation and keeping more of them there until they’re off supervision – became the central strategy Texas employed to reduce incarceration growth. In 2005, Jerry Madden became House Corrections chair and – along with the Democratic Criminal Justice Chairman in the Senate, John Whitmire – sponsored legislation to revamp probation in order to provide more meaningful supervision (especially through reduced caseloads) and alternatives to incarceration, but leaving sentence lengths, at least on the books, alone.
I wonder whether a Republican majority in the CA legislature would be the ticket to resolve this; that is, whether such a majority would have a sense of responsibility for responding to the crisis and therefore come up with good solutions. We have seen quite a few examples of nonpartisan initiatives to save system costs by avoiding death row expansion, legalizing marijuana, and the like. The thing to remember is that the big architects of large-scale historical decarceration efforts have been, traditionally, conservative politicians. I strongly recommend reading Kathlyn Taylor Gaubatz’s interesting book Crime in the Public Mind, which mentions, among many other interesting things:
Few may remember, however, that Ronald Reagan was not always the standard bearer of the get-tough movement. In an account of changes in California’s criminal justice system, Caleb Foote writes that “during Ronald Reagan’s tenure as governor, his administration first ordered the [Adult] Authority, as an economy measure, to reduce prison population by increasing parole release rates, a policy which enabled the state to close one prison and underpopulate San Quentin and some other prisons. Then the Reagan administration, attacked from the southland for being soft on crime . . ., reversed course and ordered the Authority to tighten ship.” We know that the tides of public opinion began their harsh upswing during the years of Reagan’s first governorship, and here is a revelation that his actions as a political leader were not always oriented to a crackdown on crime.
The new coverage today of the Assembly’s downsized inmate release plan has been even more disheartening than the original reports. Gone is the hope for a sentencing commission that would make sense out of our patchwork sentencing regime. What gets to me today, however, are the readers’ comments to the Chron report. Here is one such example:
We need the names of those released, so the Democrats can be held personally responsible when these criminals rob, rape, and murder the tax-paying citizens of California.
As countless studies have recently shown, when the public is educated about sentencing alternatives and costs, there is much less punitivism. What is going on, then? Well, apparently many Californians see the image of Phillip Garrido, Jaycee Lee Dugard’s kidnapper and tormentor, when they think of these released inmates — disregarding (or not knowing) the actual details of the plan, which would lead to the release of non-violent inmates, and probably not of sex offenders. This trend would be in keeping with the tradition of generalizing punitive opinions from rare, outlying, sensational cases. The victims’ names on invasive, punitive litigation initiatives are sad memorials – the legal equivalent to the Mexican descansos – of horrible, yet uncommon tragedies, commemorated in an unsuitable way. But rather than a flower wreath or a wooden cross on the side of the road, these sad memorials derail our policies in the majority of cases that do not follow those patterns.
Incidentally, the institutional embarrassment of Garrido’s unspeakable crimes while under supervision may have led CDCR to publicize the part played by parole officers in his capture. My colleague Jonathan Simon, over at Governing Through Crime, has some interesting thoughts to offer on the fallacy behind the assumption that the typical protocols of supervision would have led to Garrido’s capture. And I would like to add, for those who insist to generalize from atypical cases, the Garrido case might be a lesson about the futility of universal parole, and an argument on behalf of limiting its scope.
Yesterday’s Assembly decision, emptying much of the initiative to reform our broken system from its content and neutralizing any healthy effect it would have on prison population, is not only a disappointment; it is also a bitter reminder that, while cost-related arguments have the potential to bring issues to the forefront of public discourse, they can’t always carry the day against the older genre of arguments, consisting of unsubstantiated moral panics and political hysteria.
It was a sobering experience to read this morning’s paper, which, in addition to these disappointing news, included a report on the unveiling of a hideous crime: kidnapping, rape, and a nightmarish “compound” where the alleged perpetrator kept his victims. Beyond the immediate horror at these events, my concern is that such abnormal, outlier experiences are perceived, and raised, as the norm, feeding our fear and insecurity.
“Crime” is a generic name for a large universe of phenomena that are very easily distinguishable from each other. The Garridos of this world are very different from the vast majority of imprisoned Californians; for every Phillip Garrido there are tens of thousands of arrestees, inmates and parolees whose property and drug crimes are closely linked with the environmental and spatial dimensions of their lives. Yes, there is some free choice and rational calculation in all of this, and the best path out of prison life must include a certain component of assuming responsibility (a little about this in a following post this weekend); but these choices exist in a universe in which not everyone is offered the same set of alternatives. When the limited opportunities contribute to crime, we should be thinking about providing opportunity, in tandem with requiring responsibility. The key is to understand that the answer to crime needs to be more tailored to suit a particular situation or social reality. There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to crime. And certainly, shaping our response to crime based on the demons we hear about, perceive, and sometimes create, will not generate anything we will be pleased with in the long run.
Who, and what, poses a risk to public safety? What are we afraid of? Those are two different questions. The former requires hard evidence and the willingness to accept the answers we might not have assumed. The latter, unfortunately, is what has been informing criminal justice policy since the Nixon Era. Our budget woes had the potential to shake us out of indifference and generate a real change. The crisis brought together lawmakers of both parties, police officers, reformers, academics, prison personnel, and Federal judges, all of whom realized that these difficult and trying times were an opportunity to generate real change and turn around the collision course that we have been navigating since the 1970s. I fear this opportunity has been, to a large extent, missed by yesterday’s decision.
For the Governor’s disappointment with the Assembly’s decision, read here; for other discontents, see here.
Yesterday, the CA Assembly made so many changes to the Senate-approved Governor’s plan to release 27,300 inmates and reform sentencing, that it is hardly recognizable. The Chron reports:
The changes would reduce the state’s prison population by about 16,000 inmates instead of 27,000, and would save the state about $325 million instead of $525 million.
Set aside were some of the most controversial parts of the legislation, such as allowing sick and elderly inmates to finish their sentences at home or in community hospitals, where they would be monitored by GPS tracking devices, according to Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County).
The bill also put aside plans for creating a sentencing commission to revamp the state’s rules on punishment and parole, an idea backed by many Senate Democrats including President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. The bill, in its original form, passed the Senate by a 21-19 vote last week.
The original package, negotiated in part by Bass, stalled in the Assembly late last week despite Democrats’ strong majority in the lower house of the Legislature.
The revised bill eliminates changes to some crimes – such as writing bad checks and receiving stolen property – so that they are always charged as misdemeanors. The bill was revised to reset the grand theft threshold to $950, higher than the current $400, which was set in 1982, but significantly lower than the $2,500 that the Senate approved last week.
What’s left in the bill are changes to the state’s parole system so that some low- and moderate-risk offenders would not be subject to parole revocation; allowing certain felons who violate probation to serve time in county jails; and allowing the early release of inmates who complete certain rehabilitation programs such as earning GEDs.
This is, to say the least, very disappointing. We will follow up with a more thorough analysis later in the day. For now, we’ll just point out two things:
1. This is proof that budget-based arguments, without a deep understanding of what is ailing the system, can only take us so far. OldThought is still around, and unsubstantiated public safety arguments can still win the day.
2. If the Prison Law Office needs any proof that the state is incapable of carrying out the appropriate and necessary decrowding plans, for the purposes of the Plata/Coleman appeal, this is it.
A majority of US adults believe that some crimes, for which offenders are currently incarcerated, do not demand time behind bars.
Eight in ten (77%) adults believe the most appropriate sentence for nonviolent, nonserious offenders* is supervised probation, restitution, community service, and/or rehabilitative services; if an offender fails in these alternatives, then prison or jail may be appropriate.
Over three-quarters (77%) believe alternatives to incarceration do not decrease public safety.
More than half (55%) believe alternatives to prison or jail decrease costs to state and local governments.
US adults more often think alternatives to incarceration are more effective than prison or jail time at reducing recidivism (45% vs. 38%).
Respondents cited a variety of reasons they believe justify sending fewer people to prison or jail, including expense, overcrowding (danger to guards, danger to inmates), the ability of proven alternatives to reduce crime, and the fairness of the punishment relative to the crime.
While the questions emphasized “nonviolent” and “nonsexual” offenders, and are therefore not devoid of bias, they are more specific than questions targeting “offenders” in general, which used to be the modus operandi in public polls and the like. This is very good news, and it proves the point that punitivism has not been our lot simply because “that is what the public wants”. We are smarter than that.
Our pals at Corrections One link today to a phenomenal and touching piece by Michael Cabral, currently serving time at Salinas State Prison, about the impact of the budget crisis on life within walls. Some of his sad words:
Now, six months later, the political solution to California’s budget crisis has eliminated all self-help programs behind the walls. First-time inmates are popping up regularly, impressionable youngsters with a year or so to serve. Without the support of any rehabilitative programs, prison for them will be less “Correction and Rehabilitation” and more “Corruption and Retaliation.”
Of course, a few of the “good guys” will try to lift their spirits, but an overwhelming number will be surrounded by company-seeking misery.
They’ll hear all about the system being out to get them, how their lives are ruined forever, how it would be pointless to parole and look for a decent job (or any job). Then, they’ll hear countless theories and strategies on how to become better, smarter criminals. Their environment will gradually break them down, and mold them into mindless — if not heartless — products of “the way life is” according to convict lore. Finally, they’ll rejoin society, never wanting to return to prison again, but knowing only how to do just that.
Prompted by our posts about the current dilemmas we face regarding the $1.2 billion cuts, and particularly Matthew Cate‘s recommendations, there’s a thoughtful and interesting post this morning from our pals at Grits for Breakfast. Here’s what Texas has tried to do to reduce its inmate population, and how well it has worked:
Texas pursued some of these same strategies in recent years to reduce its prison growth rate, a result achieved primarily by reducing the number of probation revocations. That was done through greater use of “progressive sanctions” and intermediate penalties for those who violate terms of supervision instead of sending them straight to prison. Secretary Cate’s proposal would apply that tactic to both probation parole. Key to making it work, though, to judge by Texas’ experience, will be boosting supervision resources, either by spending more money to supervise offenders in the community or reducing the length of supervision so officers are watching fewer people. That tactic will surely save money compared to sending the same folks to prison, but as a practical matter it will require additional investments to strengthen community supervision.
Adjusting the property crime thresholds is a strategy Texas has not yet pursued but which is probably justified here as much as in the Golden State. In Texas, theft
reaches felony thresholds when “the value of the property stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000,” so the same tactic could be applied here and would also reduce the number of new prison entrants. The $1,500 level was set in 1993 when the “state jail felony” category was created (essentially a fourth degree felony), and it’s never been adjusted for inflation.
The Chron reports on the Governor’s plan for corrections cuts, which includes changing the definition of some offenses, charging wobblers as misdemeanors, moving undocumented immigrants to the hands of the Feds, and narrowing the scope of parole. This plan will reduce the CA prison population by 27,000 inmates, and is already generating much opposition from Republican politicians.
