Cuts in prison rehab programs will only make a bad situation worse
This article was published on 03.11.10.
Here’s a stark fact about California’s prison inmates: Most of them—about 95 percent—will be released someday. And most won’t be prepared to handle freedom. They won’t have job skills, they won’t have taken substance-abuse classes, many won’t even be literate. And so they almost inevitably will drift back into the only work they know: criminality.
Then they will be caught and returned to prison, which is why California has the worst recidivism rate in the country: 70 percent.
Is that what we want? Right now, many people are upset that some prisoners are being released early, as a budget reduction measure. But these are mainly nonviolent and aging offenders near the ends of their terms; they pose little threat. The inmates still in the prisons are the ones to worry about.
Currently the state spends $11 billion annually on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Until recently, $560 million, or about 5 percent of the total, was budgeted for rehabilitation. It’s worse this year. The DOCR, forced to slash $1.2 billion from its budget, is cutting $250 million—almost 45 percent—from rehabilitation.
As the Sacramento Bee reported this week, the result is a 30 percent trim in high-school equivalency and other literacy and vocational courses—800 of 1,500 instructors have been laid off—and a 40 percent cut in substance-abuse programs. Gone are such programs as landscaping, janitorial maintenance, printing and graphic arts, roofing, drywall and cabinetry classes.
The consequences are predictable. As Jean Bracy, principal of the school at Folsom State Prison, told the Bee, “You cannot take people and throw them in a cage and expect them to be OK when they get out without rehabilitation.”
If you want to see a stark illustration of the consequences of Republicans’ cuts-only approach to the budget deficit, this is it.
When men leave their cages - Editorial - Opinions - March 11, 2010 - Chico News & Review
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
California Decides to Scrap Rehab and Cultivate Crime
by Sam Harnett
Published February 28, 2010 @ 07:09AM PT
California's 70% recidivism rate –- the highest in the nation -– was always an indication that the prison system was horrifically broken. Well, that astronomical rate is about to go even higher.
Over the next few months, California will cut $250 million in prison rehab programs as part of the budget decision last July to reduce state prison spending by $1.2 billion.
The Modesto Bee reports that by the time the state finishes eliminating that $1.2 billion, two-thirds of all inmate rehab and education programs will be eradicated. Already gone is Harrison's 35-year-old mill and cabinetry class, as well as the graphic art shop at the Sierra Conservation center.
Statewide, there's many more on the chopping block, and that means losses for prisoners as well as staff jobs. This first round of cuts will yield about 850 job losses: bad news for a state with unemployment rates ballooning over 10%. As for the direct impact on prisoners, The San Francisco Chronicle has some good numbers on what saving 250 million bucks really means: for example, 17,000 fewer prisoners will be able to enroll in academic or job-related programs, and access to drug treatment for 3,500 prisoners will likewise be cut off. As the Chronicle reports, "At San Quentin State Prison alone, 13 of the 19 programs currently offered are slated for elimination...including all but two of the six vocational programs, an anger management course and a high school program."
Who needs anger management courses and a high school program when you've got shiv-making class, criminal activity brainstorming, and gang networking 101? Without rehab programs, prisons really are just a breeding ground for more crime. Cellmate networking served as a convenient plot mechanism in The Usual Suspects, but it's a real phenomenon, and it means more crime and prisoners serving repeat sentences.
These cuts mean more recidivism and fewer cases like that of Orson Aguilar, who writes in the Chronicle about how a rehab program “saved his life.” He grew up in L.A.'s Boyle heights, shot someone in the arm and pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon. But while in prison, he managed to get a job in the attorney's office as part of a work-furlough program. After getting out, he finished college, completed a master's degree and is now executive director of the Greenlining Institute, a social justice advocacy group.
Rehab works. It's an essential part of the prison system. The Chronicle, for example, points out how Schwarzenegger himself added the word “Rehabilitation” to “California Department of Corrections.” Too bad he isn't putting the money where his mouth is.
California isn't the only one struck with this apparently "brilliant" plan of short-term savings and long-term disaster. On February 16, for example, Texas state leaders proposed cutting $294.3 million for prisons and rehab programs -- axing nearly 3,100 jobs in the process. A real twofer.
The twofer for California is the sharp reduction in forward-thinking prison funding, coupled with a new early release program. In other words, California's pulling out the rehab rug and shoving inmates onto the street, only to take them back later on different charges. If we continue to cut programs for prisoners, stories like that of Kevin Peterson (which I blogged about earlier this week) will only serve as a prelude.
Photo Credit: Sean Hobson
Published February 28, 2010 @ 07:09AM PT
California's 70% recidivism rate –- the highest in the nation -– was always an indication that the prison system was horrifically broken. Well, that astronomical rate is about to go even higher.
Over the next few months, California will cut $250 million in prison rehab programs as part of the budget decision last July to reduce state prison spending by $1.2 billion.
The Modesto Bee reports that by the time the state finishes eliminating that $1.2 billion, two-thirds of all inmate rehab and education programs will be eradicated. Already gone is Harrison's 35-year-old mill and cabinetry class, as well as the graphic art shop at the Sierra Conservation center.
Statewide, there's many more on the chopping block, and that means losses for prisoners as well as staff jobs. This first round of cuts will yield about 850 job losses: bad news for a state with unemployment rates ballooning over 10%. As for the direct impact on prisoners, The San Francisco Chronicle has some good numbers on what saving 250 million bucks really means: for example, 17,000 fewer prisoners will be able to enroll in academic or job-related programs, and access to drug treatment for 3,500 prisoners will likewise be cut off. As the Chronicle reports, "At San Quentin State Prison alone, 13 of the 19 programs currently offered are slated for elimination...including all but two of the six vocational programs, an anger management course and a high school program."
Who needs anger management courses and a high school program when you've got shiv-making class, criminal activity brainstorming, and gang networking 101? Without rehab programs, prisons really are just a breeding ground for more crime. Cellmate networking served as a convenient plot mechanism in The Usual Suspects, but it's a real phenomenon, and it means more crime and prisoners serving repeat sentences.
These cuts mean more recidivism and fewer cases like that of Orson Aguilar, who writes in the Chronicle about how a rehab program “saved his life.” He grew up in L.A.'s Boyle heights, shot someone in the arm and pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon. But while in prison, he managed to get a job in the attorney's office as part of a work-furlough program. After getting out, he finished college, completed a master's degree and is now executive director of the Greenlining Institute, a social justice advocacy group.
Rehab works. It's an essential part of the prison system. The Chronicle, for example, points out how Schwarzenegger himself added the word “Rehabilitation” to “California Department of Corrections.” Too bad he isn't putting the money where his mouth is.
California isn't the only one struck with this apparently "brilliant" plan of short-term savings and long-term disaster. On February 16, for example, Texas state leaders proposed cutting $294.3 million for prisons and rehab programs -- axing nearly 3,100 jobs in the process. A real twofer.
The twofer for California is the sharp reduction in forward-thinking prison funding, coupled with a new early release program. In other words, California's pulling out the rehab rug and shoving inmates onto the street, only to take them back later on different charges. If we continue to cut programs for prisoners, stories like that of Kevin Peterson (which I blogged about earlier this week) will only serve as a prelude.
Photo Credit: Sean Hobson
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Bad Policies Are Really What’s Driving California’s Huge Prison Costs
By Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, AlterNet
Posted on February 8, 2010, Printed on February 8, 2010
Governor Schwarzenegger’s flippant remark last month that California could reduce prison costs by shipping 20,000 inmates to Mexico is a dangerous sign that he may be giving up on serious corrections reform – even as the dual crises of overcrowding and overspending intensify. His office has now rejected that off-the-cuff scheme, but the governor stands behind another questionable proposal to cut costs through privatization, signaling that he may be taking his eye off of real solutions in favor of political posturing.
To be fair, during his tenure, Governor Schwarzenegger has gone much further than his recent predecessors to propose much-needed reforms – moves supported by corrections experts, academics and advocates alike. Unfortunately, what he’s been unable to muster is the political strategy to achieve such a policy shift in Sacramento.
The Legislature was able to pass some prison and parole reforms last year after a significant effort for which they deserve some credit. Unfortunately, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office doesn’t expect even those modest reforms to amount to much. The state budget assumed an inmate reduction of 18,500 in 2009-10 rising to 25,000 in 2010-11. The LAO now anticipates the inmate reduction to reach just 1,600 – or 1% of the prison population – in 2009-10 and 11,800 in 2010-11.
There are two very distinct and crucial measures of the feasibility of any population reduction plan: Can it be done safely? And can it be done politically?
The answer to the former is absolutely. It is simply not true that California needs to keep 170,000 people in state prisons on any given day and another 120,000+ Californians on parole. This isn’t my opinion; it’s the opinion reached by decades of research and expert analysis. It’s also the experience of other states. Several states – including New York – have seen their crime rates fall even faster than California’s while they have simultaneously reduced their prison populations.
Even as California struggles with prison overcrowding, Colorado, Kansas, New York and Michigan, among others, are either closing prisons or struggling with what to do about so many empty cells.
It’s worth noting that, even in California, per-capita incarceration rates have typically been much lower than they are now. The state prison population has grown by over 500% since 1980, rising from under 30,000 to about 170,000 at the end of 2009. In the same period, according to federal statistics, the state population grew by just 55%.
One in 161 Californian adults is now in prison and one in 94 adults in the state is either in prison or on parole.
Who are all these people? Too many of them were convicted of petty offenses, what in prior years were misdemeanors that landed someone in jail for six months to a year. Now even petty offenses – including stealing a car radio or being in possession of a tiny amount of drugs – can land you in state prison for years at a cost to the taxpayer of $49,000 per inmate per year. If an inmate is older or has a health problem, the cost rises significantly. Most other states handle this level of offense at the local level.
By opting for a policy of sending low-level offenders to state prison, California is far out of step with other states – and out of time.
Independent of any privatization plans or other attempts to lower correctional officers’ wages, cutting prison costs must include reforms to sentencing, probation and parole with respect to non-violent offenders, especially drug offenders, to bring California law into conformity with other states and Western democracies. To talk about cost cutting without addressing one of the fundamental drivers of rising costs is misguided and short-sighted.
The LAO recognized in its most recent report on the corrections budget, that “over the past two decades, prison costs have increased largely as a result of increases in the inmate and parolee populations, federal court orders to improve inmate health care, and negotiated increases in compensation for correctional employees.”[1]
Reducing the number of prisoners – not just lowering the cost of imprisoning this massive population – must be the state’s priority. It’s a moral, public health, public safety and fiscal imperative. It’s also what the federal judges have demanded.
As for the second measure of feasibility for any population reduction plan (Can it be done politically?), I’m not the only one hoping Sacramento will give us a new answer this year.
Margaret Dooley-Sammuli is deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance in Southern California.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145580/
Friday, February 5, 2010
Editorial: Don't let hype kill options to prison
Feb. 5, 2010 - 12:00 am
Here's a dirty little secret: Most inmates in California state prisons and county jails eventually get out and return to communities.
Here's another dirty little secret: For years, overcrowded county jails have been releasing 9,100 pretrial inmates a month. They've also been releasing 9,300 sentenced inmates per month before they complete their sentences.
Something's got to give.
Before a new law took effect on Jan. 25, California had a system of good-time credits that allowed inmates to shave time off their sentences for good behavior and for participating in certain work, education and drug or alcohol programs. The aim is to encourage good behavior and reward self-improvement efforts, as well as reduce overcrowding in prisons and jails.
Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that would expand good-time credits, a long-overdue reform. It took effect Jan. 25. Crime victims groups and others, however, already are stoking fears of a massive new crime wave.
Here's a reality check.
No state prisoners have yet been released under the new law, not one. Credit enhancements for state prisoners only began to accrue on Jan. 25. And, for state prisoners, release will take place only after intense review of each prisoner. The state expects 6,500 prisoners will be released early in a trickle over time.
A hullabaloo ensued, however, when 21 counties, including Sacramento, interpreted the new law as allowing them to apply expanded good time retroactively to jail inmates. Given budget constraints and overcrowding, they jumped on this opportunity without preparing adequately for it.
The predictable result: One Sacramento jail inmate who was set free 16 days early made his way to a drop-in mental health program for homeless people, allegedly lunged at a worker and was arrested on a charge of attempted rape. Unfortunately, the usual groups that oppose the new law are using this incident to discredit it.
If this inmate had been released 16 days later, would it have made a difference? Not likely. What might have made a difference: The Sacramento Sheriff's Department should have given a heads-up to city police and others. This didn't happen. Sheriff John McGinness acknowledges the error.
Sacramento County released about 50 more people in a single day than it would have under the old law, a number that officials expect to flatten out over time.
As McGinness told us, "This is not a humongous difference. … The good people of the Golden State ought to get used to the idea of reduced rate of incarceration for lawlessness, because the cost is becoming prohibitive."
Californians need to make better use of cost-effective alternatives to incarceration, such as work release, electronic monitoring, drug court intensive supervision and day reporting. It's time to get smart on crime instead of resorting to alarmism.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Here's a dirty little secret: Most inmates in California state prisons and county jails eventually get out and return to communities.
Here's another dirty little secret: For years, overcrowded county jails have been releasing 9,100 pretrial inmates a month. They've also been releasing 9,300 sentenced inmates per month before they complete their sentences.
Something's got to give.
Before a new law took effect on Jan. 25, California had a system of good-time credits that allowed inmates to shave time off their sentences for good behavior and for participating in certain work, education and drug or alcohol programs. The aim is to encourage good behavior and reward self-improvement efforts, as well as reduce overcrowding in prisons and jails.
Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that would expand good-time credits, a long-overdue reform. It took effect Jan. 25. Crime victims groups and others, however, already are stoking fears of a massive new crime wave.
Here's a reality check.
No state prisoners have yet been released under the new law, not one. Credit enhancements for state prisoners only began to accrue on Jan. 25. And, for state prisoners, release will take place only after intense review of each prisoner. The state expects 6,500 prisoners will be released early in a trickle over time.
A hullabaloo ensued, however, when 21 counties, including Sacramento, interpreted the new law as allowing them to apply expanded good time retroactively to jail inmates. Given budget constraints and overcrowding, they jumped on this opportunity without preparing adequately for it.
The predictable result: One Sacramento jail inmate who was set free 16 days early made his way to a drop-in mental health program for homeless people, allegedly lunged at a worker and was arrested on a charge of attempted rape. Unfortunately, the usual groups that oppose the new law are using this incident to discredit it.
If this inmate had been released 16 days later, would it have made a difference? Not likely. What might have made a difference: The Sacramento Sheriff's Department should have given a heads-up to city police and others. This didn't happen. Sheriff John McGinness acknowledges the error.
Sacramento County released about 50 more people in a single day than it would have under the old law, a number that officials expect to flatten out over time.
As McGinness told us, "This is not a humongous difference. … The good people of the Golden State ought to get used to the idea of reduced rate of incarceration for lawlessness, because the cost is becoming prohibitive."
Californians need to make better use of cost-effective alternatives to incarceration, such as work release, electronic monitoring, drug court intensive supervision and day reporting. It's time to get smart on crime instead of resorting to alarmism.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Prison report: The Early Release Scare
By Just A Guy
Editors note: Just A Guy was recently released after serving a sentence in a California state prison. He continues to comment on law-enforcement and public-safety issues.
Here we continue with the anti-release rhetoric, saying that all the people are “dangerous criminals” and the releases will cause a spike in crime.
Here’s Los Angeles Police Protection League President Paul M. Weber:
“We can expect crime to go up as a result of this massive release, considering California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, with seven out of ten parolees reoffending then returning to the prison system.”
Of course you can expect an increase in crime -- most of the people sent to county jails and prisons (especially county jails) have been given absolutely no rehabilitative programs. What is the real reason that seven out of 10 parolees return to jail, though? Is it from new crimes or parole violations? Why does California have the highest recidivism rate?
Maybe it’s because, for a long time now, parolees have been violated and sent back to prison for “technical violations” like leaving the county without permission or having contact with their significant other when they weren’t supposed to.
While it is certainly each individual’s responsibility to abide by the rules of parole, some of the things that parolees get violated for the first time are overwhelmingly ridiculous. Personally, I believe that parole should be eradicated except for truly violent offenders; parole is really a joke anyway, and it has never stopped someone that has the intention of committing new crimes from doing so. You think some parolee is going tell his/her parole officer, “I am going to go use drugs today and burglarize someone.” And, do you think all the cops know every parolee on their beat now? Give me a break.
Let’s talk about parole anyway. What is it? Really, it’s just an extension of your sentence. If you are sentenced to 4 years in prison for possession of drugs (or anything else), it’s really a seven year sentence. You could do all four years, be released and still have three years of parole and if you get violated and sent back you can wind up doing, on the installment plan, 3 more years in prison/jail.
Now, I don’t see parole as particularly difficult (just annoying) if you are really trying to get your shit together, but most people that are released on parole get out with significantly less than they went in with -- i.e. no to live, no job, and a worse attitude. Then, they are released to 10% unemployment, have no real job training or life skills, have been tainted by the California Penal System and are ripe to come back. What difference does it make if they get out now or later? They’re all getting out eventually.
When are you Californians going to get tired of spending more on prisons than your kid’s higher education? But this is the progressive state that voted against gay marriage…
Finally, why don’t you seriously consider amending three strikes? There are people that were sentenced to 25 to life for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs and their previous offenses were many, years prior. Guys sentenced to life for stealing a pizza or a bike; that’s a reality.
And you want to reduce prison spending? Legalize drugs. Period.
By Tim Redmond: January 20, 2010 01:47 PM
Editors note: Just A Guy was recently released after serving a sentence in a California state prison. He continues to comment on law-enforcement and public-safety issues.
Here we continue with the anti-release rhetoric, saying that all the people are “dangerous criminals” and the releases will cause a spike in crime.
Here’s Los Angeles Police Protection League President Paul M. Weber:
“We can expect crime to go up as a result of this massive release, considering California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, with seven out of ten parolees reoffending then returning to the prison system.”
Of course you can expect an increase in crime -- most of the people sent to county jails and prisons (especially county jails) have been given absolutely no rehabilitative programs. What is the real reason that seven out of 10 parolees return to jail, though? Is it from new crimes or parole violations? Why does California have the highest recidivism rate?
Maybe it’s because, for a long time now, parolees have been violated and sent back to prison for “technical violations” like leaving the county without permission or having contact with their significant other when they weren’t supposed to.
While it is certainly each individual’s responsibility to abide by the rules of parole, some of the things that parolees get violated for the first time are overwhelmingly ridiculous. Personally, I believe that parole should be eradicated except for truly violent offenders; parole is really a joke anyway, and it has never stopped someone that has the intention of committing new crimes from doing so. You think some parolee is going tell his/her parole officer, “I am going to go use drugs today and burglarize someone.” And, do you think all the cops know every parolee on their beat now? Give me a break.
Let’s talk about parole anyway. What is it? Really, it’s just an extension of your sentence. If you are sentenced to 4 years in prison for possession of drugs (or anything else), it’s really a seven year sentence. You could do all four years, be released and still have three years of parole and if you get violated and sent back you can wind up doing, on the installment plan, 3 more years in prison/jail.
Now, I don’t see parole as particularly difficult (just annoying) if you are really trying to get your shit together, but most people that are released on parole get out with significantly less than they went in with -- i.e. no to live, no job, and a worse attitude. Then, they are released to 10% unemployment, have no real job training or life skills, have been tainted by the California Penal System and are ripe to come back. What difference does it make if they get out now or later? They’re all getting out eventually.
When are you Californians going to get tired of spending more on prisons than your kid’s higher education? But this is the progressive state that voted against gay marriage…
Finally, why don’t you seriously consider amending three strikes? There are people that were sentenced to 25 to life for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs and their previous offenses were many, years prior. Guys sentenced to life for stealing a pizza or a bike; that’s a reality.
And you want to reduce prison spending? Legalize drugs. Period.
By Tim Redmond: January 20, 2010 01:47 PM
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
An Opportunity To Reform The Criminal Justice System
Sen. James Webb's bill could help make the case for treating and rehabilitating nonviolent offenders
By Harry K. Wexler
January 20, 2010
In its Jan. 17 editorial, “A poor prison plan for California” and several other articles, The Times has detailed some of the long-standing problems in the American criminal justice system. As a member of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's prison reform strike team in 2007 and '08, I had a firsthand look at how the system is rife with inequities and in many ways dysfunctional.
Most experts would agree that the system generally fails on half its mission -- rehabilitating offenders -- and is only partially successful in the other half of preserving public safety. I say partially successful because very few inmates escape but far too many (about 50% to 75%) wind up back behind bars after their release.
These issues have been reported on many times in the media, yet in recent years there hasn't been any comprehensive response at the federal level. A proposal by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) could bring forth that response, however. The bill (S 714) would authorize a national criminal justice commission to review system dysfunctions, document what works and make recommendations for reform. The proposed commission is a historic opportunity that should not be missed.
The two most critical problems include the incarceration of nonviolent offenders -- primarily drug abusers (many with associated mental health disorders) -- and the lack of meaningful rehabilitation, which contributes to very high recidivism rates. Basically, we are endangering public safety by imprisoning many nonviolent individuals -- who would be better served at lower cost in the community -- while limiting space for violent criminals who should be incarcerated.
Despite the aforementioned challenges, substantial progress has been made. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has been especially active in supporting research, producing a body of solidly replicated findings about drug treatment within the criminal justice system. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has supported many effective interventions.
Most professionals in the field agree that, based on available research, workable solutions are available. For example, researchers have demonstrated that a well-designed prison program with aftercare can reduce recidivism by about 50% up to five years after release. Other research has shown that diversion of nonviolent first-time offenders can be highly effective in reducing crime and substance abuse, and that very few first-time offenders who are initially diverted then go on to prison. As we all know, prison often teaches minor offenders who could have been diverted to become chronic recidivists.
Thus, a good case can be made for reconsidering who goes to prison and for providing effective rehabilitation to those who do.
The Senate bill identifies a number of problems that need to be addressed by the commission. Consider the following data cited by the legislation:
* The United States has the highest reported incarceration rate in the world.
* Minorities make up a disproportionately large share of prison populations.
* There are 7.3 million Americans incarcerated or on probation or parole, equal to one in every 31 adults, an increase of 290% since 1980.
* On average, two out of every three released prisoners will be rearrested, and one in two will return to prison within three years of release.
* Corrections expenditures compete with and diminish funding for education, public health, public safety, parks and recreation, and programs specifically designed to reduce the prison population.
* Despite high incarceration rates for drug-related offenses, illicit drugs remain consistently available.
* Treating addiction will significantly help decrease demand.
* Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased 1,200% since 1980, and a significant percentage of these offenders have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity.
* Prisons and jails nationwide have become holding facilities for the mentally ill, about 73% of whom suffer from a substance-abuse disorder.
The commission could address these issues head-on. Its review of the criminal justice system and relevant research would include looking at how other Western countries handle crime, punishment and rehabilitation. The commission would be funded for 18 months and be responsible for producing detailed findings, conclusions and recommendations to Congress and the president.
At this juncture there are many reasons to believe that we can make reform work instead of continuing to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. Unless we stop our overreliance on severe laws and fundamentally reform the system, we risk sacrificing our educational system and other important social institutions to fund the continual expansion of our prisons.
Harry K. Wexler has been researching substance-abuse treatment and policy for four decades and has directed projects that helped establish prison treatment programs in 20 states.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
Friday, January 15, 2010
Prison report: Jails v. Education
By Just A Guy
They're spending a lot on prisons, but not on lunch -- this is what CDCR serves
According to an article in the SFGate and the governor’s State of the State address the governor wants to increase spending on higher education and reduce spending on prisons. Personally, I don’t care if this is political wrangling or not, it’s about the most sensible thing to come out of the governor’s office in quite some time with respect to prisons and prison spending.
"It's a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster. "I believe the first priority of state government is to keep people safe. To cap that certainly doesn't make any sense to me."
You know, sometimes simple solutions to complex problems are the only solutions that work. It seems as if California and its government have been over thinking the whole issue on prisons for quite a while. If more money is spent on higher education then maybe less people will go to prison? Simplistic, yes, but makes sense, right?
What’s so complex about the problem anyway? The complexity really lies in how, after many years of an increasing prison budget and a decreasing higher education budget, years of crying out how awful EVERY SINGLE PERSON in prison is, years of political maneuvering, the political folks will reduce costs while standing by their claims that less spending on prisons erodes public safety. That is the complex part.
There will be many detractors like Sen. George Runner, but they are not thinking long term or big picture. They appear to be concerned only with their political futures, either that or they are just idiots (maybe both). I have, in many past blogs, expressed the idea that if you educate you reduce public safety risk. If these politician’s are really concerned with public safety they will gladly make more funds available to higher education.
Meanwhile, take a look at the pictures in this blog and ask…who is really making money from CDCR. It ain’t the inmates!
CDCR celebrates the capture of inmate cell phones -- but who do you suppose smuggles them in an makes money off them?
Oh -- and they aren't spending much money on maintenance, either -- at least, not when it comes to the plumbing. Everything at CDCR seems to be in the shitter:
By Tim Redmond: January 13, 2010 11:47 AM
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/prison_report_jails_v_educatio.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)