The problem of soaring prison costs is nothing new in California government, even as the state faces largely unprecedented problems with its budget.
The recent polling by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that 70% of the voters singled out prisons as a major area where the budget should be cut. This exists, in fact, across party lines and geography.
“Prisons occupy a unique, contradictory place in societal priorities and, therefore, in politics,” he writes. “On one hand, we want those who commit crimes locked up so they can’t prey upon us. But on the other hand, we view prison spending as wasteful.”
Coupled with high rates of incarceration is the fact that California spends three times more per inmate than the state of Texas does.
“Another complication is that while politicians may dislike having to spend so much on prisons, they’re also afraid of releasing felons who might commit crimes and spark a political backlash,” Mr. Walters adds.
“Instead of cutting everything except prisons, Brown could free thousands of prisoners and millions and millions of dollars by making even moderate parole reforms,” says Emily Harris of Californians United for a Responsible Budget.
“He could do that today if he wanted,” Harris added, citing pressure from federal judges to reduce prison overcrowding.
On the other hand, as Dan Walters cites, groups like the ACLU are “calling on Brown to suspend enforcement of the death penalty to save millions of dollars in maintaining a death row and building a new execution chamber. Commuting condemned inmates to life imprisonment without parole would save a billion dollars, the ACLU contends.”
However, Governor Brown will not make these cuts, in the view of Dan Walter. Instead, “Brown will employ fear of felon releases to persuade voters to raise taxes — if his tax measures actually make it to the ballot.”
Therein lies the problem. In order to seriously cut spending on prisons, politicians would have to use the best wedge issue they have, the biggest fear generating issue they have, and they would have to change the way they run politics itself.
For too long, too many people, from prison guard unions to politicians to police and other law enforcement, have profited either literally or politically from exploiting the public’s fear of crime.
It was this fear of crime that George Bush Sr. deftly played up when attacking his opponent, Governor Michael Dukakis, on a prison furlough plan that the latter had inherited in Massachusetts from a Republican Governor. The case of Willie Horton, serving a life sentence for murder then committing another violent crime on a weekend furlough, become one of the most notorious political ads around, and it skillfully exploited people’s fear that felons would be released from prison and then offend again.
More recently we have seen similar efforts, through the three strikes issue and various acts to protect children from predators, used to the same effect.
There are four policies that would not bring about a new crime wave, that would nevertheless save the state huge amounts of money, while dealing better with problems of recidivism that have plagued the corrections system.
First, we have made much of the power of local firefighters, in terms of securing high salaries with huge benefits, but the group that has done this at the state level better than anyone is the powerful correctional officers.
We are talking about a group of people who make well over six figures and retire to the same 3% at 50 pension that is bankrupting local cities. One huge difference between the cost of inmates in California versus Texas is the cost of prison guards.
Second, the ACLU is correct. The death penalty does not work. It is not implemented in California. There are problems of unequal application and problems of execution or the potential execution of innocent people because the system is so bad. We could save millions by converting these sentences to life without parole.
Third, we need to end mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing arose back in the 1980s and 1990s as a backlash against the last bastions of supposed liberal judges who released criminals. These days, the courts are not filled with liberal judges. But judges have a better sense on a case-by-case basis who deserves a longer sentence. Guidelines are fine, but judges need to be allowed discretion to avoid putting a convicted felon in prison for life for minor offenses.
Finally, we need to decriminalize drugs. The amazing fact is that when people are scared by politicians about the release of felons, most people see violent offenders, people that would never be released early without very good cause. The people who would be released early would be the non-violent drug offenders, most of whom have only hurt themselves.
It is far cheaper, even, to put people in residential treatment programs rather than send them to prison. With the money freed up, we could invest in programs like education, job retraining, and mental health services. We could actually have a chance to break the cycle and attack crime not after it has happened, but at its source.
But we are afraid to do so, and the reason is because politicians, law enforcement and prison guards do not want to give up their resource monopoly and their wedge issue.
I have argued, across a whole spectrum of issues, that the times that we live in dictate to us the need to change the way we do business. Nowhere does that need to occur more than with regard to prisons.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Jerry is pushing a good deal of this burden onto counties who are broke. On the one hand you could say this is a cynical move, but since counties are also strapped it will force local governments to make these tough choices.
My guess is that counties will have little choice but to let out non-violent offenders early.
Maybe we can outsource our prisons to Texas?
Good piece, David. Unfortunately, even in the enlightened town of Davis, citizens have been fed the lie so often, for so long that they equate any drug use with murder and terrorism. No one wants social services of any kind located in their neighborhood, especially those related to parolees and drug users.(Perhaps only child molesters incur more wrath.) It seems likely that voters would sacrifice those poor, who, by some arbitrary standard are deemed legitimate, in order to protect themselves from the perceived threat of residential service facilities.
First, it must be noted that prisons only represent 10% of the budget, whereas schools represent almost 42%.
Brown himself is using fear of crime to push for raising taxes so he doesn’t have to take on the powerful prison guard union – “Brown will employ fear of felon releases to persuade voters to raise taxes — if his tax measures actually make it to the ballot.” Where is Brown in fighting to reduce the exhorbitant prison guard salaries?
How do you know the courts are not filled w liberal judges, so that the 3 strikes law is not necessary anymore? I would say it needs to be seriously tweaked, but not necessarily scrapped altogether.
The decriminalizing drugs argument is highly questionable. Police, in their discretion, often do not arrest people smoking a joint. And according to ncvc.org: “In examining the State and Federal prison inmates who reported being under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) reports the following:
24.5 percent (24.5%) of Federal and 29 percent (29%) of State prison inmates reported being under the influence of drugs when committing violent offenses.
10.8 percent (10.8%) of Federal and 36.6 percent (36.6%) of State inmates reported being under the influence of drugs while committing property offenses.
25 percent (25%) of Federal and 41.9 percent (41.9%) of inmates reported being under the influence of drugs when committing drug offenses.
24.4 percent (24.4%) of Federal and 22.4 percent (22.4%) of State prison inmates reported being under the influence of drugs when committing weapon offenses.”
I agree w abolishing the death penalty for a whole host of reasons. As we keep seeing, the criminal justice system in all aspects is fraught w conflicts of interest, inconsistencies, incompetents.
I would vociferously agree we need to think PREVENTION as the key here. Head off criminality if at all possible. After school programs, mental health services, drug rehab programs, drug prevention programs, better education programs for troubled kids w home problems or learning disabilities. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Dr. Wu: “Jerry is pushing a good deal of this burden onto counties who are broke. On the one hand you could say this is a cynical move, but since counties are also strapped it will force local governments to make these tough choices.”
Be careful what you wish for. Reisig has already threatened that if the DA’s Office does not get enough funding, it will result in the cessation of prosecuting misdemeanor crimes. that means minor shoplifting, pickpocketing, etc. can go on w impunity. Essentially you will not feel safe walking down the street w a purse or briefcase; and prices of goods (including groceries) will drastically increase to cover the costs of shoplifted goods. Think about it…
“How do you know the courts are not filled w liberal judges, so that the 3 strikes law is not necessary anymore?”
Math. Republicans have controlled the Governorship with the exception of five years since 1982.
“Be careful what you wish for. Reisig has already threatened that if the DA’s Office does not get enough funding, it will result in the cessation of prosecuting misdemeanor crimes. that means minor shoplifting, pickpocketing, etc. can go on w impunity”
I disagree. It’s still a crime that would result in an arrest even if it does not result in prosecution. Moreover, the DA’s office would find a way to either charge them as felonies or get grant money. Also stores have their own security, and this would merely transfer enforcement to private entities. Not the best case scenario, but without resources…
Elaine:
[quote]First, it must be noted that prisons only represent 10% of the budget, whereas schools represent almost 42%. [/quote]
Higher education is only about 8%. At the State level spend roughly the same amount on prisons (7.2%) as on higher education.
[quote]Be careful what you wish for.[/quote]
I am not necessarily wishing for the state to shift all of these services to counties. My point was that the counties will be stuck making the choices.
THe biggest problem is the prison guards union. If you are a law and order person you should be furious with them. AS David stated we spend about 3 times what Texas does and roughly double the national avg–we spend close to $50k per prisoner. Are our prisons really that much better than Texas?
All you bleeding heart liberals that are all for residential halfway houses for drug offenders and parolees make sure you put in your requests to have them located next door to you.
rusty49-As my previous post suggests, the NIMBY spirit is alive and well. Which programs do you propose to cut to pay for the prisons?
The guards pay, benefits and retirement are way out of line, that’s a great place to start. But we know Brown isn’t going to go after the unions like he should, sure there will be some small cuts for political capital, but not the cuts that should be made because Brown is beholden to them for helping him get elected. When it comes to having a halfway house close to mine, you bet I’ll scream NIMBY. If you’re okay with it then fine, put them on your street.
As pointed out the entire Dept of Corrections budget is approx $10billion or 10% of the state budget. Cut the corrections budget in half and you are still $20billion short of what is needed to balance the budget.
The vast majority of people I have met and worked with in corrections know that the California model is little more than a place to warehouse criminals where little if any efforts are made to rehabilitate inmates. The reality is that the majority of Californians have made it very clear to our elected officials that they believe in retribution and not rehabilitation, they support the death penalty, and want outrageously heavy sentences for even minor crimes. In our own Yolo county the recent sentences of 8yrs for shoplifting a $4 bag of cheese, 9yrs for bouncing $200 in bad checks, 4yrs for domestic violence, and 7yrs for stealing Chinese fast food are a few examples.
[i]”First, it must be noted that prisons only represent 10% of the budget, whereas schools represent almost 42%.”[/i]
For the record, those 10% and 42% numbers (which actually are 10.3% and 41.7%) are percentages of the General Fund. Of the total state budget, K-12 is 29.4% and Corrections is 7.2%.
These are the percentages of all categories for the total state budget:
K thru 12 Education 29.415%
Higher Education 10.076%
Health and Human Services 30.081%
Corrections and Rehabilitation 7.170%
Business, Transportation & Housing 9.982%
Natural Resources 4.298%
Environmental Protection 1.175%
State and Consumer Services 1.094%
Labor and Workforce Development 0.352%
General Government 1.201%
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive 5.156%
[img]http://motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_California_Prison.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.moremarin.com/.a/6a00e55001eaef8834011168575d4d970c-300wi[/img]
dmg: “Math. Republicans have controlled the Governorship with the exception of five years since 1982.”
First of all, five judges had the opportunity to appoint liberal judges. Our own federal judges in the ninth circuit are the most liberal in the nation. Now the next question I have is: Are all our judges in CA appointed by the governor?
dmg: “I disagree. It’s still a crime that would result in an arrest even if it does not result in prosecution.”
If it isn’t prosecuted, then clearly criminals will walk. Did you really mean to say this? Or did I miss something?
Dr. Wu: “Higher education is only about 8%. At the State level spend roughly the same amount on prisons (7.2%) as on higher education.”
When I said schools take up 42% of the budget, I meant grades K-12. Sorry I wasn’t more clear on that point.
Dr. Wu: “I am not necessarily wishing for the state to shift all of these services to counties. My point was that the counties will be stuck making the choices.”
Depends on whether Brown is permitted to implement his plan to slough off state responsibilities onto counties. If he is successful and does not send along the commensurate funding that goes along w it, I think there will be hell to pay…
Dr. Wu: “THe biggest problem is the prison guards union. If you are a law and order person you should be furious with them. AS David stated we spend about 3 times what Texas does and roughly double the national avg–we spend close to $50k per prisoner. Are our prisons really that much better than Texas?”
You won’t get any argument out of me that the salaries of prison guards is way out of whack…
Rusty: How is that different than housing them in prisons?
“The guards pay, benefits and retirement are way out of line, that’s a great place to start. But we know Brown isn’t going to go after the unions like he should, sure there will be some small cuts for political capital, but not the cuts that should be made because Brown is beholden to them for helping him get elected”
You do know that the prison guards did not support Brown this last election, right?
“Our own federal judges in the ninth circuit are the most liberal in the nation. “
That’s not necessarily true per our previous discussion. But the other part of that is just because a court is the most liberal in the country, does not mean that it’s liberal.
“If it isn’t prosecuted, then clearly criminals will walk. Did you really mean to say this? Or did I miss something? “
Yes I did really mean to say this, but the bigger point gets back to my bigger point, they aren’t going to stop prosecuting these crimes, they are using that threat and that fear to extract more money from a cash-strapped county, by suggesting you cut my budget, we’ll set dangerous criminal free. That’s how the game is played.
Head off criminality if at all possible. After school programs, mental health services, drug rehab programs, drug prevention programs, better education programs for troubled kids w home problems or learning disabilities. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
I gnerally agree with the strategy, but how would you pay for that? You’ve described what looks like a cut list for budget planning these days.
Rifkin: Are those photos from a California prison or a California high school? It’s getting harder to tell the difference.
Long-term solution to reducing the prison population: reduce the number of fatherless households.
Criminal behavior begins when older boys, or the streets, teach younger boys how to be men.
Correctly channeling the typical high levels of testosterone in adolescent boys requires a responsible and moral male role model that provides the child a balance of tough fatherly love.
I think the type of boys that are at risk for criminal behavior need the type of father that provides tough love… the type that causes a healthy level of fear in the child. I make the joke that my boys know their mom will love, support and protect them no matter what, but their dad might take them out depending how badly they behave. That little bit of “father fear” is healthy for male childhood development.
There is a correlation between the rates of children in single-parent households and the rates for incarceration by race.
See below. The first percent is the rate of single-parent children by race; the second is the rates for incarceration by race:
-Non-Hispanic White 24% 4%
-Black or African American 67% 2.2%
-Hispanic or Latino 40% .75%
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers.
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.
So, if we are going to redirect spending to get at the root cause of our growing prison population in order to reduce prison costs, it would seem that we should focus on: strengthening the family unit, stronger social and cultural support for fathers, parenting education, stronger social/cultural moral condemnation of out of wedlock births, etc. We should also focus on having a robust economy where jobs are plentiful.
Otherwise I suggest we talk to Texas about outsourcing our CA prison system since Texas does a better job for 1/3 the cost.
To Jeff Boone: So how do we strengthen the family unit, when we have a society that thinks it’s okay to just live together and never get married? Many irresponsible woman have children out of wedlock, and the father walks away from all responsibility. And the media promotes this type of behavior…
Otherwise I suggest we talk to Texas about outsourcing our CA prison system since Texas does a better job for 1/3 the cost.
It seems like Texas would also really appreciate having some extra revenue these days. Their school districts are dealing with equivalent kinds of budget cuts as California.
Correction above on the incarceration stats: “-Non-Hispanic White 24% 4%”… it is .4%
“So how do we strengthen the family unit?”
Elaine, good points and good questions. When I start thinking about all the challenges today… all the things preventing strong families… it keeps taking me back to two general themes: a growing selfish and role-less society, and growing immorality.
Related to the selfish and role-less society… Historically our culture was one where traditional roles worked well… fathers brought home the bacon and mothers tended to the home the children. Mothers provided the nurturing and fathers provided the tough love. The women’s movement combined with a number of other factors has changed all this and it has resulted in copious role confusion. Many young women say they will not accept a traditional wife/mother role because of the personal sacrifices it would require. Many men don’t want, or cannot perform, that role either.
Other than their standard interest in “hooking up” I hear a lot of young people (under 50) say how disgusted they are with the behavior and attitudes of the opposite sex. Fewer are getting married and fewer are having children. Those that do get married are less likely to have children and are more likely to divorce.
The morality problem manifests in rates of infidelity and out of wedlock births. Since hooking-up is now a more common and accepted pursuit than courting and making a life-long commitment to marry and raise a family.
The root of the problem as I see it is the existence of too many lost and confused boys… many of them adults that have not developed into well-functioning men. I think the causes of this are social, cultural and political… as are the possible solutions too.
“It seems like Texas would also really appreciate having some extra revenue these days.”
LOL. Well, do things fast, better & cheaper and you deserve the extra revenue.
Just having fathers present (whether to give tough love or not, but hopefully contributing in some way as a parent) would at least demonstrate that fathers have some constructive role to play. See the rule about “90% of life is just showing up”. Right now, it looks like many fathers serve little more role than as sperm donors.
Also had a conversation with someone a couple of days ago who shared a statistic about a very high correlation of individuals who were in foster care and ended up in prison. Don’t know the source, but plausible, and not inconsistent with the premise of having loving parents in a person’s life.
wdf1: “Just having fathers present”
Agreed. I think a father does not even need to be physically present all the time to have this net positive impact. For example, the father that works on the road, or works away from home is still “there” and can be impactful in a son’s growth and development. Also, I think the presence of a committed father, or lack of, can also have profound impacts on a daughter’s growth and development. Studies have concluded that fatherless daughters are more apt to be more promiscuous.
To wdf1 and Jeff Boone: All good points about fatherless families and how it effects our children. I would also add there are plenty of women who are not good mothers. Can remember a friend of my daughter, whose mother would go away w her boyfriend for an entire weekend, leaving the 12 year old daughter alone the entire time.