The U.S. Supreme Court recently ordered California to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates -- more specific numbers estimate a reduction of 38,000 to 46,000 inmates to bring the population to around 110,000. Although the prisons will still be filled over capacity, it will be a reduction needed in order to guarantee the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is no longer violated, which bans cruel and unusual punishment. The 2009 ruling has thus far been the driving force behind 9,000 prisoners being moved to county jails and was recently upheld in a 5-4 ruling in the case Brown vs. Plata.
Obviously this isn't as simple as overcrowding, where gangs and hierarchies are quick to develop and flourish. This is more about prisoners being put through needless suffering -- which in some cases has led to death -- according to Justice Anthony Kennedy in the opinion he wrote for the majority. This opinion included pictures of the overcrowding and examples of needless suffering and death, i.e. prisoners having to wait months for care in regards to physical and mental well-being. Maybe not every prisoner is going or has gone through this ordeal but maltreatment is a serious problem happening in prisons across the country. Some may argue these criminals are in prison and shouldn't be afforded luxuries. They did the crime and need to do the time in a place that isn't nice. It shouldn't be a vacation! Anyway aren't we in a recession? There are more important things state funding, which is already in the red, should go towards like educating our future, a future free of criminals! We already pay enough in taxes for each prisoner. Enough is enough. However, humane and adequate care isn't a luxury.
California officials have two years to comply with the order and are currently looking into transferring prisoners to other areas in addition to other methods of control, including electronic monitoring.
My question is, how do you choose who stays and who goes, whether the jailbird is shipped off to a county prison, strapped with an electronic monitoring device or whatever? And do you have enough room in county prisons to house these offenders or are most of them going to be on ankle monitoring? Will you make the county prisons overpopulated in turn and put too much strain on the system with thousands on monitoring? How much does ankle monitoring cost the tax payer?
At the beginning it might be easy ... looking at criminal records and seeing minor offenses (minor in comparison to some of the sickos in prison). It's not hard to see the difference between someone getting caught up in the "three strikes you're out laws" with some petty stuff -- which many people argue is the driving force behind the rise in California's prison population (oh yeah, we're gonna to be tough on crime so we can get voted in for another term! Maybe even use "tough on crime" as my slogan!) -- in comparison to individuals put away for more serious crimes, brutal, sickening crimes.
These people get through the first hundred inmates easy. But what about when they start hitting the thousands, tens of thousands? Gets harder to see much difference between who will stay and who will go, doesn't it? Also, if you start with the less serious, are you going to put them on ankle monitoring and then work your way up to the more serious, who you put in county prisons? And if you do it that way, you're just left with a shit load of serious offenders living together in the state prisons, which hopefully means these are lifers because there's not much hope being prepared to re-enter society if you spent your days and nights with serious criminals. But then again, nothing is ever absolute, is it? Not every criminal doing hard time will commit another crime, more heinous or not, when they re-enter society. Some may, some may not.
Not every criminal is guilty, what with DNA tests proving so time and time again. I read an article in Esquire a few months ago about a man, Ray Towler, who spent almost 29 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Although it helped that the drama was beautifully captured by journalist Mike Sager, Towler's story was extremely tragic and inexcusable on its own accord yet more so on a broader level because situations like his are becoming more common every year.
How can you tell if someone is going to commit a crime again? How can you tell who is more dangerous than someone else? Criminal records alone? Are these people going to research each and every crime on each and every criminal's rap sheet? Who are they to determine these things?
There is too much room for error. It's scary. After the first few thousand, things are going to get harder, more mistakes will be made.
Also, say California gets it done before the two years is up and moves prisoners to county jails and does what it needs to do. Is there a plan in place to guarantee this doesn't happen again? If so, what is that plan? Only putting serious offenders in jail? What's a serious offense? Killing someone? Dealing drugs? Rape? I know my criminal education comes chiefly from watching Law & Order: SVU reruns, but don't these hardcore offenders start out committing petty crimes and becoming more and more bold, slowly moving up the criminal hierarchy?
I'm not saying I have answers. I don't. However, this situation reminds me too much of the welfare system. Good for some people but not good for others who take advantage to the max and don't work to better themselves and their situation. Too open to error and problems. But then what is the best answer? A lot of answers to these probems sound good on paper but in reality are very difficult. What is best overall? Yeah, you are going to reduce the prison population but what then? What next?
No comments:
Post a Comment