New Zealand Herald
12:16PM Sunday Feb 15, 2009
Guy Adams
LOS ANGELES - There's not been a greater escape since Steve McQueen jumped aboard his motorcycle. The state of California has been ordered to release more than 55,000 prison inmates to ease pressure on its ailing penal system.
Federal judges ruled last week that California's 33 adult jails have become so overcrowded that they violate the constitutional rights of inmates, subjecting them to "cruel and unusual" punishment that is causing at least one death a month. Just over a third of the state's 158,000 prisoners must be set free by 2012 to ensure that basic healthcare is provided to those who remain behind, the judges said. The majority will go through early release and parole schemes.
Critics claim the ruling amounts to throwing open the doors of the biggest prison system in America, and will endanger the public. California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, announced an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, saying: "This order is a blunt instrument that does not recognise the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed."
Jerry Powers, who heads the state's chief probation officers' association, called it "a game of Russian roulette".
But regardless of their concerns, something needs to be done: California's prison population has increased by nearly 80 per cent since 1990, and its penitentiaries are operating at nearly double their intended capacity of 84,000. A rise in the number of elderly prisoners is also affecting resources; 11 per cent of inmates are aged 50 or over and the average cost of housing a single prisoner is now US$46,000 a year.
Building more prisons is not an option, since state finances are in such disarray that public workers are forced to take two unpaid days' leave each month. The state government is running an annual deficit of US$12bn.
The prison crisis is not limited to California. In Des Moines, Iowa, county officials plan to start charging prisoners for toilet paper. Michigan, where Detroit has America's highest murder rate, will release 4,000 prisoners who have served their minimum sentences. New Jersey, Carolina and Vermont are putting drug-addicted offenders into treatment rather than prison. Louisiana, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world, is hoping to reform a system that spends more on prisons than on higher education.
These measures are controversial in a nation that views prison as a place for retribution rather than rehabilitation. Many states have a "three strikes" rule that means relatively petty criminals are given life sentences.
6 comments:
United States’ prisons are facing a major crisis, which in my opinion is a lose-lose situation. The Washington Post calculates that the current system is operating at 56% over capacity. Not only are these living conditions unhealthy for the inmates, the taxpayers and residents are also suffering.
My first reaction to reading the article was: What on earth will California, for instance, do with 55,000 prison inmates suddenly roaming the streets? To me, this is frightful. I feel it is somewhat unfair for me to judge the group (of criminals) as a whole because I do not fully understand their personal circumstances; however, I would not feel safe living in cities with criminals who are supposed to be in jail.
My second reaction was: Well great, now is the time to get rid of the Three Strikes Law. Under the Three Strikes Law the defendant receives mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:
•Is convicted in federal court of a serious violent felony; and
•Has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, where at least one of which is a serious violent felony. The other prior offense may be a serious drug offense.
The Three Strikes Law varies from state to state. California for example is known for being the strictest on the Three Strike Law. Statistics say that over 7,000 people in California have been incarcerated under the Three Strike Law, and many of these people have been ordered life sentences for what is perceived to be petty crimes. For example: the case of Leandro Andrade who was caught shoplifting children’s videos twice within two weeks at K-Mart stores in Southern California in 1995. The tapes Andrade stole were worth approximately $1.60. Such petty thefts (under $400) are ordinarily misdemeanors punishable by up to six months in jail. But Andrade had a record of burglaries and marijuana possession from years before. As a result of California's tough Three Strikes Law, Andrade’s new petty thefts were treated as felonies. Upon his conviction, the judge sentenced him to 50 years to life in prison. This proves that the enforcement of the Three Strikes Law can be harmful if there aren’t ambiguous laws throughout the entire countries.
Finally I wonder how do the taxpayers manage to pay for this? The article states that each prison inmate costs the tax payers $46,000. With the overflow of people in our prison system, the amount that taxpayers must contribute seems unreal. With our country already in recession, this cannot be healthy for our economy.
I think there is some great irony in this situation: we´re releasing the prisoners to secure constitutional rights and prevent "cruel and unusual" punishment - but then the government is letting them back on the streets right where they did the awful deed they did that put them in prison in the first place.
??? And you can bet that because they won´t get the proper rehabilitation (very plausible) they´ll do it again.
It all seems too rediculous and a bad decision on behalf of the supreme court. Mainly for safety concerns but also it will only create more mountains during this reccession that we´re in.
A result of a financial crisis is cutting the budget. However, there is more fat to be trimmed before the release of thousands of prisoners.
I do think the government should be obligated to provide adequate housing and support for the prisoners, especially if it's to the point that it is causing deaths in the inmate population. I think public safety is a reasonable concern but it's necessary to consider all those in jail who do not pose any threat to the general public and might not even deserve the full extent of their sentences. As Nikki described in great detail, especially in the "1995 Leondro Andrade Case," the three strikes rule is flawed and punishes people disproportionately to their crime. Mass release of dangerous criminals onto the streets is not smart policy but neither is paying $46,000 to keep someone in jail for the rest of their life when they don't pose a serious threat and would be of better use as a productive rehabilitated part of society.
This issue is very controversial, but I do not think it is right that people in prisons are suffering and even dying because of their living situations. I think that it would be very dangerous for the public for them to release so many prisoners, however, I think it that it is possible to release some of them that have been sentenced because of the Three Strikes Law. There are many prisoners that have been wrongly convicted or do not pose a great threat to society, yet it is almost impossible to judge and decide which prisoners these are, and which ones to release. I think that its possible to distinguish some of them that can be released, but there need to be guidelines and a specific process of doing so. There shouldn't be a predetermined percentage that they plan on releasing, but rather do the best that they can to release the people that really are not threatening to society.
Although it certainly seems unsafe to allow tens of thousands convicted criminals back onto the streets, I have to agree with what Amrit said: that it is completely unconstitutional for some of the current conditions of the prisons to continue to persist. However, if the wrong criminals were released, then chaos could reign. This is another one of those double edged sword topics. Either you put the innocent, mostly law abiding public’s safety at risk or you continue with a flawed prison system which is unfair, dangerous and frankly unhealthy for those within the prison system. The current system is also extremely expensive for the public, so if non violent criminals were released it could even benefit the tax payers.
Even though these are criminals, many of those within the prison system are there for petty crimes, as demonstrated by the explanation of the three strikes law, and have the ability to be rehabilitated but are not given the actual opportunity. If rehabilitation was a larger part of the prison system, hopefully if successful, the less prisoners there would be. There also should be some reconsideration to how non violent criminals are prosecuted as to allow more efforts on rehabilitation and less focus on shutting them away, and choosing not to deal with them appropriately. Also it saves money if prisoners are in jail for less time, if they are successfully rehabilitated and sent back out into the world. Some people have a negative outlook on this, thinking that once a person commit a crime nothing will stop them from commiting another one, but I'm a firm believer in viewing the human race postively and have faith that rehabilitation definitely could help some people.
Post a Comment