Cross-posted from Calitics: the progressive community blog for California.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing a new plan to build more prisons, saying that we "desperately" need new prison cells to accommodate our exploding prison population.
Saying that federal courts could seize control of California's overcrowded prisons, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday called a special legislative session on the corrections system and said the state must build more lockups soon.
Schwarzenegger urged lawmakers into action less than a week after a federal court monitor sharply rebuked him for retreating from prison reforms he had promised after taking office in 2003. Some critics called the governor's move an election-year political gimmick. (LA Times 6/27/06)
But, even with all the discussion of the prison crisis, the real cause of the problem is ignored.
Lots, lots more on the flip...
Arnold had some specifics to his plan:
In his speech, Schwarzenegger offered a four-part plan that he said would relieve overcrowding in the nation's largest prison system and would help more convicts stay crime-free once released.
With the inmate population at an all-time high and 16,000 inmates sleeping in gyms, hallways and even outside at one prison, the governor said California "desperately'' needs more cells. He embraced a bill by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) to use lease revenue bonds, which do not require voter approval, to build two prisons for at least $500 million apiece. And he asked for authority to expedite spending and contracting.
Schwarzenegger revived a proposal to shift 4,500 low-risk female inmates to private correctional centers closer to their homes. He also called for moving thousands of male convicts near the end of their sentences to other detention facilities, to better prepare them for success upon release -- and free up prison beds. (LA Times 6/27/06)
Now, there have been many commentators on these issues citing all the various problems that have caused the prison crisis. You know, poor planning and under construction of prisons, the fight over prison placement, and all that stuff. Bill Bradley thinks the real problem is the battle between prison administration and the prison guard's union (CCPOA).
Yes, we have terrible conditions in our prison. And the battle between the union and the administration has become, to be polite, a distraction. But all of these are really just symptoms aren't they? We have overcrowded prisons because we have too many prisoners. We have locked up too many people. In other words, the real problem is the 3 Strikes Law.
According to a 2004 report, 3 strikes accomplishes very little but costs a great deal. A summary of the 3 part report that the Justice Policy Institute Published:
1. 3 Strikes has significantly contributed to an increase in California's prison population. (Still Striking Out)
2. Nearly two thirds of the second or third strikers were incarcerated for nonviolent crimes.
3. California had four times as many people incarcerated under Three Strikes as the other 21 Three Strikes states for which there were data.
4. There was no substantial link between the use of Three Strikes and declines in crime.
5. 3 Strikes disproportionately impacts African-Americans and Latinos on a statewide basis. (Racial Divide)
You can read the reports on the Justice Policy website, they are excellent resources. But I think even if you were a conservative, you would pay attention to this number: $10.5 billion. That's how much 3 strikes has cost us since 1994. Over 10 billion, which could have been used to improve our schools, preschool programs, and other necessary services, many of which would have lowered the crime rate just as effectively. (Or if you're a conservative, it could have gone to drowning the government in the bathtub through tax cuts. Thanks Grover!) One of the most attractive aspects of Prop 82, the preschool initiative, was that it had the ability to reduce the crime rate.
A 1998 RAND study found the following:
Research by RAND has found that alternative crime control policies can also be more costeffective. Their 1998 report, Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits, compared the cost-effectiveness of four childhood intervention programs--home visits and early childcare; parent training; graduation incentives; and delinquent supervision --with the Three Strikes law. The results? Parent training, graduation incentives, and delinquent supervision were more cost-effective in terms of the number of serious crimes prevented per dollars expended. Graduation incentives were four times more cost-effective: while it would cost $3,881 per serious crime prevented, Three Strikes was expected to cost $16,000 per serious felony prevented. (JPI, page 20)
So, even if you are a conservative, you'd rather spend $3,881 rather than $16,000 to accomplish the same thing, right?
Wrong. The proponents of 3 strikes used Fear® to sell this, and continue to use Fear® in the defeat of Prop 66 in 2002 that would have excepted nonviolent offenses from 3 Strikes.
So, now we are now getting worse results by spending more money. But nobody has the courage to say this. To challenge the "Tough on Crime"TM meme would be political suicide, so we pack our prisons full of African-Americans and Latinos. At some point we will have to see that continually locking up more people will not be a successful program. What is that line?
Before the "Tough on Crime"TM meme was really going strong, there were 3 times more black men in college than in prison. Today, there are more black men in prison. Do we need to lock up all of our minority youth before we feel safe?
So, while the governor talks about the "desperate" prison crisis, think about where the desperation really lies. We desperately need to stop locking up large swaths of our youth. We desperately need more funding for crime prevention programs. We desperately need more funding for education. We do not desperately need new prisons.
Until we at least amend 3 strikes to exclude non-violent offenses, or preferably repeal it altogether, we should not build any new prisons. We don't need them. Our artificially inflated prison population will return to reasonable levels, and we can use the money for better purposes and programs. Purposes and programs which actually lower the crime rate.