Termination of the Terminator’s Plan

Ezekiel Edwards

Termination of the Terminator’s Plan

A few months ago, I wrote about Governor Schwarzenegger's plan to move thousands of California state inmates to other states in an attempt to ease overcrowding. Luckily, a state judge blocked the attempt earlier this month on the grounds that prison overcrowding is not covered by California Emergency Services Act.

It's not that I want prisons to be overcrowded; rather, it's that simply moving prisoners from one state to another, far away from their families and friends, suffocating another state's system just to make room for more prisoners in California, is not the answer. Despite the technical basis for the court's decision, if it stands, the Governor will have to find another, more intelligent, more sustainable solution to California's problem. Corrections officials had hoped originally that enough inmates would volunteer to be sent as far away as Indiana and Tennessee; not surprisingly, few inmates stepped forward.

To be sure, California's prisons, like those throughout the country, are full beyond capacity. As I wrote in November, "there are more than 16,000 inmates sleeping in gyms and classrooms, 1,500 in triple-decker bunks, and tens of thousands more without meaningful access to education or job-training programs. Over the last 25 years, California's prison population has exploded by more than 500% and added 21 new penitentiaries. Despite this blighted boon, the Golden State shows no signs of slowing down: in 2011, the prison population is projected to be close to 200,000."

Transporting inmates to other states is a quick-fix solution that fails to address more important issues: why has California's prison population exploded (along with the entire country's), disproportionately and often contrary to the crime rate? How can the state help improve the communities from which many inmates come economically and educationally? Do there exist effective and comprehensive drug, counseling, and job-training programs to reduce recidivism as prisoners reenter their communities? Can the state take complete control of the prison-building business, moving it away from the private, profit-driven sector, thereby lessening the disturbing connection between big business and incarceration? If the state chose not to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders, sought alternatives to incarceration for drug and petty offenses, placed far less emphasis on arrest numbers when assessing police officers' job performances, and gathered the resources used to fight the drug war and expand the prison industrial complex and instead reinvested them into improving public schools and supporting small businesses, what effect would that have on the state's crime rate, the size of the prison population, and the health of lower-income communities? Why doesn't the state give judges greater discretion and flexibility in sentencing determinations?

Although Schwarzenegger has asked lawmakers to review sentencing laws, he has simultaneously proposed a somewhat paradoxical solution to prison overcrowding: earmarking $11 billion for a prison and jail-building program. With a prison population that has risen steadily over the past 30 years (regardless of the rise or fall of crime rates), now totaling 2.3 million people and still heading skyward (in California it is almost 200,000), and a failed drug war which has stuffed our jail cells with too many drug offenders, the solution is not building more prisons. That has been the solution for three decades, and all it has done is tear families apart and place the United States atop the world in incarceration rates.

It is time for a total recall of the Governor's plan to re-distribute the prison population nationwide, particularly given the collateral damage it would cause to inmates and their families, and instead for the Governor to develop a more substantial, long-term, consistent solution to his state's overcrowded prisons, one that could become a model for the states to reduce permanently both their overall prison populations and their rates of incarceration.

Ezekiel Edwards: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:00 AM, Feb 27, 2007 in Criminal Justice | Prisons
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (6)

Comments

In California (as in other states) many of the incarcerated are there for drug-related crime. Yet there is little, if any opportunity for prisoners with addictions to 'come clean.'

My friend who works in a drug prevention program in one California prison has done so for years as a volunteer. Every step of the process to open drug treatment programs at the prison is challenging.

If we want to get our prisoners out of prison, we need more drug treatment programs in prison.

I just don't get it! Do you people think this prison population problem happened over-night?
Most of it began with Ahnold's appointment of an incompetent Director/Agency Head, Rodrick Hickman, who ran away when he couldn't get his way politically. All he accomplished was to change the Department's name, combine the Youth Authority with the Adult Authority and then cancel the Correctional Officer Academy resulting in over 4,000 vacancies and weekly forced overtime for incumbent staff!
Wake-up people! This is the Governor's problem and it may be a Federal issue with these $500,000 Federal Judge Appointees and overseers who haven't got a clue on what to do!

John, who are the "you" people you are referencing? I think that Ezekiel as a former public defender knows that the prison population problem didn't happen over night. I'm not sure why you'd think he said that.

To MSS: I completely agree that we need more durg treatment programs in prison. Better yet, we could have more and better-funded drug treatment programs outside of prison, addressing drug addicts needs without surrounding them with prison bars. Treating more prisoners in prison is a good idea; decriminalizing drug use is essential.

to John: you're absolutely right. The United States did not wake up one morning surprised to find itself with the world's highest incarceration rate. Rather, it is the result of decades of premeditated, articulated criminal justice policies across the country aimed at incarcerating large swaths of lower-income communities, using the criminalization of drugs as a crucial mechanism, filling prisons while simultaneously filling the bank accounts of prison-builders, and relying on "tough on crime" soundbites to placate voters. As you point out, it is the Governor's problem in California, but it is all of our problem nationwide.

Yes, this is a national problem, and yes you can blame the politicians for passing tough sentencing laws, but the truth of the matter comes down to individual choice by the offender. I agree that there needs to be more Drug Programs within our communities, but you also have to understand that these people who are committing these crimes don't admit they have a problem until they find themselves behind bars. You can't fix someone who does not want to be fixed! These drug crimes that are committed are not possession crimes, they are the dealers of the product and other crimes like extortion and random acts of violence against innocent citizens. I'm all for helping the unfortunate, but I refuse to feel sorry for the individuals who are preying on our children, so they can earn a fast buck. Not every criminal is a victim of society, sure there are some, but most choose the lifestyle. My solution is simple, more programs for those who qualify to participate, revamping the sentencing structure, and redesigning the Parole system to better serve the public. Building more prisons will only result in that many more prisons filled to capacity.

Gary: you raise a very valid point when you discuss "responsibility", one that may appear very cut and dry to some people but which I find very complex. As for actual drug addicts, I agree that many people refuse to admit they have problems, or refuse to get the help they need on their own, but I disagree that putting them in prison --- even if for the purpose of eventually funneling them into a program --- is good policy. Moreover, many programs are set up for people to fail, often ensuring that they stay or return to prison with no hope of another program.

As for drug dealers (i.e., not the users assisting sales to make money for their addictions), the choice is clearer, but not without issues. The reason people sell drugs (like any consumer product) is to make money, period, sometimes a decent amount in a short period of time (depending where on the chain they are) and because, overwhelmingly, other legitimate, stable professions are not possible. I have represented many non-violent people who sold drugs solely to make a living. Regardless of whether one is sympathetic to this choice or not, or knows for certain that, if one were in the same predicament, one would choose other paths (like many admittedly have, even if the path is unemployment or part-time work at minimum wage), the real solution to drug crimes is not penal, it is economic and educational. The reason none of my friends sold drugs is because they knew that with just a little bit of hard work and decent behavior they could go to college (often very good ones) and become doctors, lawyers, and businessmen. Others know they can go into their father's business. Why sell drugs?

But for many of my young clients in the South Bronx, for instance, stuck in overcrowded schools with overwhelmed teachers, no guidance counselors or tutors, with a single parent working two jobs, a police department waiting to arrest them, difficulty finding work, living in a society that, still, harbors racial and class prejudices and shuts more doors than it opens, and unaware of the various (even if only mostly theoretical) opportunities they could pursue, for them, money is very hard to come by, the pressure from family for support constant, the future understandably looks bleak, and some often see selling drugs to neighborhood drugs addicts as the only realistic way to earn a living. It might be the wrong choice, but it is a choice I have, on some levels, understood.

There are, of course, "king pins" earning thousands, using intimidation and violence to run their business. They are a different story, although all the more reason to consider decriminalizing drugs (you don't see people dying in the streets over beer and cigarettes). But the majority of dealers are low-level, desperate to earn some money, and would much rather be making money on-the-books owning a legitimate business.

Don't get me wrong, the majority of people across America facing difficult circumstances make better choices, even if it means working three jobs, seven days a week, or paying for school at night by working during the day. So, yes, people have a choice, and people must bear the consequences of their choices (although I don't think jail should be the consequence of using, possessing, or selling drugs). It's just that "choice" is a relative term, often heavily influenced by someone's educational and econmic opportunities, and what it means on paper is often very different than what it means in life.