Shouldn't California's prison reform efforts match its prison overcrowding problem?
Prison overcrowding has been an issue in the state for several years. California's prison system is designed to hold
100,000 inmates but currently houses roughly 175,000, with a good portion sleeping in gyms, on cots in the common areas, or two-to-a-cell that was only designed for one.
With a possible federal takeover of the prisons as early as June, California has sought to address the issue in two ways, voluntary and involuntary transfer, while also requesting the Legislature's approval of $11 billion toward building additional prisons.
California needs to transfer 5,000 to 7,000 inmates to avoid an overcrowding nightmare. The state went as far as creating a marketing DVD depicting testimonials from content inmates housed in out-of-state prisons in order to attract potential volunteers. Since only 350 inmates have volunteered for transfer, the state has moved to the involuntary phase of the program.
This prompted the California prison guards union to take the state to court to block the voluntary and involuntary transfers, and it was successful, at lease temporarily, after a judge ruled such a move "unlawful." The challenge stems from state contracts with the GEO Group Inc. and Correctional Corporation of America private prisons based in Florida and Tennessee. The unions argued that the state constitution prohibits the use of private companies for work usually performed by state employees.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vows to appeal the judge's decision. Even if he wins and prison reform measures that are being put forward are successful, it will only at best make room for the next batch of inmates who will soon return California to its present dilemma.
While on the surface the issue may be prison overcrowding, just below it reveals society's inability to effectively address chronic social problems. Our failure to confront issues of drug addiction, mental health and immigration makes the prison system simultaneously the last resort and the first choice.
Moreover, California's prisoners are aging and taxpayers are paying for their medical care. As costs and inmate populations rise, we must also ask at what point does locking up the elderly cease to make sense?
California's prison overcrowding has led to a state of emergency, and yet 50 percent of the prison population is composed of nonviolent offenders. Similar problems also exist in the juvenile justice system, making it essentially a farm system with many of those incarcerated soon to be called up to the big leagues.
The state's prison overcrowding problems have morphed into a perpetual self-fulfilling prophecy. "Three-Strikes" laws, the high percentage of nonviolent offenders, and the failure to address chronic problems that give California the nation's highest recidivism rate all contribute to the problem. Though our elected leadership must take some action, few possess the courage required to offer needed change for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."
While the political rhetoric often creates the image of crime as being out of control, what is happening is industries such as construction and private prisons are getting rich on the backs of nonviolent offenders whose main crimes are being poor, black and Latino, uneducated, addicted and badly in need of mental health services.
As for the prison guards union seeking to stop inmate transfers, that too is far more about money and jobs than it is about prisoners' rights. The fact is many governors would welcome California inmate transfers with open arms because that leads to job creation.
It is the nonviolent offender who in effect serves as a vital cog in California's economic engine. Without them, there would be less justification for neither increasing prison construction or the privatization of health care nor would there be the present prison overcrowding. Nationally, with some 2 million behind bars, the corrections industry boasts a $37 billion economy.
The short-term prognosis for prison reform will likely produce something reactionary that a bipartisan group in the Legislature can agree on. There is still time in the long term, however, to create a systematic approach that addresses addiction, mental health, immigration and sentencing laws, especially for nonviolent offenders.
This assumes, of course, a legitimate desire to actually reduce the prison population.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and a syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417.