Report Warns of Potential Dangers If Services Are Not Provided to Released Inmates – According to a report from the Stanford Three Strikes Project, the 1000th inmate has been released under the reform that overwhelming was passed by the voters in the form of Proposition 36 in 2012.
Proposition 36 offers an opportunity for eligible California prison inmates sentenced under California’s prior Three Strikes Law for non-serious, non-violent crimes to seek a sentence reduction from their sentencing courts.
According to the report published on Monday, just under 10 months after the proposition was passed by the voters, “the recidivism rate of prisoners released under the Proposition 36 (2 percent) is well below California’s statewide average (16 percent).”
Currently more than 1000 inmates have either been resentenced and/or released pursuant to its provisions. According to the report, “Although many prisoners have been resentenced, there are still more than 2,000 eligible cases outstanding, including over 800 unresolved eligible claims in Los Angeles County alone.”
The report notes, “To date, over 1,000 prisoners have been released from custody under Proposition 36, according to data provided by the California Department of Corrections. Each of these prisoners had been sentenced to life under the Three Strikes law for a minor crime, such as petty theft or simple drug possession, and demonstrated to a judge that they are not an ‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety,’ under new procedures established by Proposition 36.”
However, the report notes that there are critical issues that remain unresolved and could potentially be problems in the future.
For example, “Prisoners released under Proposition 36 are returning home to a dire lack of resources. Unlike all other prisoners released from California prisons, inmates released under Proposition 36 are not eligible for state and county support services, leaving them without housing, jobs, or drug treatment.”
In many cases, “prisoners freed under Proposition 36 are released from custody without warning, clothing, money for transportation, or notice to their families or attorneys.”
“A disproportionate number of inmates sentenced to life in prison for petty offenses suffer from mild to severe mental illness. While all inmates released under Proposition 36 should have access to support services, it is especially vital that mentally ill inmates, who are particularly vulnerable, have access to a level of care that adequately addresses their needs,” the report warns.
There have also been administrative and procedural obstacles that are preventing timely dispositions in some counties. The report specifically cites the “lack of prosecutorial resources has significantly slowed the process.” In other counties, “public defender offices have been deprived of adequate means to investigate and prepare these cases.”
The report found that Proposition 36 has already generated significant financial savings and freed prison capacity for dangerous and violent prisoners.
Since the law took effect in November 2012, Proposition 36 has saved the California prison system between $10 and $13 million, the report finds.
They argue, “If courts fully implemented the initiative by reducing the sentences of all eligible inmates, the State would realize almost $1 billion in savings over the next ten years.”
The report goes on to make three critical recommendations for reforms.
First, “The State should commit more resources to expedite review and end unnecessary delay of over 2,000 cases currently pending under Proposition 36. Prosecutors must have adequate resources to expeditiously review petitions and recommend new sentences in appropriate cases without compromising public safety; and defense counsel must be given comparable resources to thoroughly investigate cases and prepare comprehensive reentry plans for their clients to maintain the low recidivism rate of inmates released under the initiative.”
Second, “Courts should ensure consistent application of Proposition 36 throughout the state. Uniform standards of review and procedural protections should be implemented to provide accurate assessments of inmate risk.”
Finally, “More public and private resources should be committed to provide services to inmates released under Proposition 36 to ensure their successful reentry into the community. Every prisoner released under Proposition 36 should have access to temporary housing, sobriety support, and employment assistance services equal to those services provided to all other inmates leaving prison.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
[quote]Every prisoner released under Proposition 36 should have access to temporary housing, sobriety support, and employment assistance services equal to those services provided to all other inmates leaving prison.”
[/quote]
I am completely ignorant in this area. Could you quickly summarize just what those services “to all other inmates leaving prison” entail ?
You may want to talk to someone named Robert Canning, he may have some insight here as well.
So most people released from custody are still under system control, some may be required to take drug programs, mental health services, etc. The people released here are not on parole or probation, so they have very limited opportunities and many have spent much of their adult lives in custody, have limited education and skills and it will be difficult for them to get jobs as convicted felons.
This is an extension of the Michelle Alexander’s concern that felony treat ends up turning people into second class citizens. We have no real system to get people out of that dilemma and so while Prop 36 solves an egregious overcharging of minor convictions, it doesn’t deal with the broader cycle of poverty-crime-incarceration.
Hmmm… it seems to me that given the will, the money that is saved by not warehousing these non dangerous individuals ( say roughly 50,000 per year) could be used to set up a fund to help them reintegrate into the community. Is this hopelessly naive, or is there any move in this direction ?
By the time she wrote that I was hard at work as a prison official.
The reason these inmates are not eligible for many services is that they are not parolees. My understanding of Prop. 36 is that an inmate appeals to the sentencing court for reduction of their sentence to “time served” if their third strike offense is non-violent. If their appeal is granted, the court re-sentences them to time served and in the parlance of the CDCR, their term is “discharged.” They are simply released to the county of last residence and CDCR closes their file. Thus, they do not get services that a parolee might.
David–good news about implementation of the 3 strikes reform and low recidivism rates. I agree that some kind of employment assistance services would be a very good idea; as per medwoman’s comment (perhaps change regulations laid out in rdcannings comment)with some of the freed-up money (a much better use of the money).