Prison industrial complex is derived from of the notion of a military industrial complex popularized by President Eisenhower. People and organizations that stand to benefit economically from a particular government function invest their resources in lobbying for a continual expansion. Over the past 30 years the state of California has become a world leader in the growth of the PIC.
The 1980s were the Reagan era. The nation moved to the right in many areas. One of them was the howl for law and order with such slogans as get tough on crime, the war on drugs and Nancy's just say no. All of this whipped the American public into a frenzy of paranoid fear that their quiet suburbs were about to be invaded by criminals whose collars were not white. The white collar criminals who were having their heyday on Wall St. in the era of Reagan deregulation fit right in at the country club.
One of the developments to emerge from this trend with the most far reaching impact was the three strikes law.
Habitual offender laws[1] (commonly referred to in parlance as three-strikes laws) are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which mandate state courts to impose harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious criminal offenses. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by habitual offenders through physical incapacitation via imprisonment.
Twenty-four states have some form of three-strikes law. A person accused under such laws is referred to in a few states (notably Connecticut and Kansas) as a "persistent offender," while Missouri uses the unique term "prior and persistent offender." In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses; however, notably among jurisdictions where misdemeanor offenses can qualify for application of the three-strikes law is California, whose application has been the subject of controversy as noted below.
California was not the first state to enact such a law. Texas and Washington preceded it. The Washington law was enacted by ballot initiative as was California's law. However, the California version has probably been the subject of the most public attention.
This is what happened to California's prison population since the law and order craze took hold.
A number of factors contributed to this dramatic increase. This was a period of general population increase but at nothing near such a steep rise. The three strikes law was just one of a number of laws instituting higher mandatory sentencing. The war on drugs played a significant role. However, three strikes has been a significant contributor.
During this period California built 23 new prisons, but that was not enough to keep up with the increase in inmate population. In 2011 the federal courts found that prison over crowding and health conditions had reached a level sufficient to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In 2011 SCOTUS issued the Brown v Plata decision mandating a drastic reduction in the prison population.
Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown along with a Democratic controlled legislature have all connived with each other at kicking the can down the road. Jerry Brown has made repeated unsuccessful attempts to get the federal courts to just go away and leave him alone. When confronted with bills that would change sentencing laws and release policies the legislators have been panicked by that horrible specter of an election opponent accusing them of being SOFT ON CRIME. The voters are once again taking matters into their own hands at the ballot box.
In 2012 we passed prop 36 which reduced some of the more draconian aspects of three strikes.
Revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is "serious or violent."
Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
Continues to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession."
Maintains the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."
In next month's election
prop 47 will appear on the ballot. If adopted it will further reduce the impact of three strikes.
Mandate misdemeanors instead of felonies for “non-serious, nonviolent crimes," unless the defendant has prior convictions for murder, rape, certain sex offenses or certain gun crimes. A list of crimes that would be affected by the penalty reduction are listed below.
Permit re-sentencing for anyone currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduces to misdemeanors. About 10,000 inmates would be eligible for resentencing, according to Lenore Anderson of Californians for Safety and Justice.[3]
Require a “thorough review” of criminal history and risk assessment of any individuals before re-sentencing to ensure that they do not pose a risk to the public.
Create a Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. The fund would receive appropriations based on savings accrued by the state during the fiscal year, as compared to the previous fiscal year, due to the initiative’s implementation. Estimates range from $150 million to $250 million per year.
Distribute funds from the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund as follows: 25 percent to the Department of Education, 10 percent to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board and 65 percent to the Board of State and Community Correction.
The measure would require misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:[1][2]
Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
Personal use of most illegal drugs
It looks like its prospects for passage are favorable. It was put together by the San Francisco DA and has very little formal opposition. A few of the more hardcore members of the PIC have of course attempted to raise the specter of crime in the streets. The CA Police Chiefs Asso. is listed as the official opponent in the ballot argument.
In my many years as a California voter I have adopted a default position of voting no on ballot propositions unless I am soundly convinced that they are likely to do more good than harm. Prop 47 is one that clearly passes my smell test and I will happily vote for it.