California is a mess. Unemployment is soaring at an accelerated rate: 9.3 percent in December. Grammy-nominated artists are punching each other in the face. And thanks to a certain woman from Whittier who will not be named, we seem to be mired in babies. So what else could we add to the mix to get this party fired up? Well, how about 57,000 felons? Why not, right?
Thanks to a “tentative” ruling made by three federal judges of the 9th District Appeals Court on Monday, California has to find a way to reduce its prison population by a third. In other words, anywhere from 36,000 to 57,000 low-risk prison inmates will be removed and reintegrated into the public over the next two to three years.
And when would be a better time? Sure, unemployment is on the rise, but surely someone with skill sets that include making license plates and forging makeshift weaponry out of soap and floss will have no trouble at all finding work in our devastated job market.
But before you start thinking of ways to work metal window bars into your house’s exterior decor, rest assured that only low-level criminals will be released. Don Specter, director of the Prison Law Office, said in an interview with CNN, “The ruling would affect those in jail for three or four months because of parole violations, those getting early release dates, and those who might qualify for early release for taking part in rehabilitation programs.”
The decision is only considered tentative because no official ruling has been made in trial. But unless the United States Supreme Court makes an unlikely overruling, the decision will stick. The three judges have notified the state that they have lost and that they will only make a formal ruling if the state does not reach a settlement with the inmates’ lawyers.
This comes as a result of two long-running class action suits concerning the unconstitutional status of medical and mental health care in California prisons. According to the judges, California prisons have become so overcrowded that inmates’ health has been endangered because of inadequate medical services, including lack of therapy and rehabilitation.
The decision cites the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects prisoners against cruel and unusual punishment. So instead of continuing to provide criminals with subpar medical care and housing, we’ll send them out on the streets during an economic crisis to fend for themselves in a crumbling economy and a floundering job market. There is no Constitutional amendment that protects against cruel and unusual reward. An article in The New York Times spells out the major problems of the California prison system.
“The California prison system has doubled its design capacity, and some facilities are even more packed than that. Prison gymnasiums and classrooms are packed with three-tier prisoners’ bunks, and lines for prison health clinics often snake 50 men deep.” Well, at least the inmates will have experience standing in lines, a skill which will no doubt come in handy at the local soup kitchen.
“The state’s 33 prisons were designed for 84,000 inmates, and they now hold 158,000, nearly double their designed capacity. The rest of the 170,000 in the correctional system are in out-of-state prisons and other facilities,” said an article in the Los Angeles Times.
According to these numbers, prisons are at nearly 200 percent capacity. All joking aside, that’s just pitiful.
This system is busted and broken, and has been for a long time. So for all intents and purposes, this decision is actually a progressive and constructive one as it is finally addressing an issue that has long been pushed aside and ignored. However, it just so happens that the timing is absolutely terrible.
Instead of rehabilitating these inmates into a well-adjusted society full of economic opportunity, we are kicking them back into an economic and societal situation that is even worse than when they committed their first crimes. Perhaps the federal judges overlooked this aspect of their decision, or maybe they thought it was worth the boost in state funds that some are predicting.
As a result of taking these felons out of the prison system, it’s reported by the Los Angeles Times that direct savings will reach nearly $900 million a year in prison costs. This is money that cities and counties could use for local jails and treatment programs, helping both those who are being removed from prison and those who would have otherwise gone to prison.
So if you can’t do the time, don’t worry about the crime, just as long as it’s committed in California. Next time you want to smoke weed, Michael Phelps, maybe you’ll consider swimming your golden-haltered self to the Golden State.
For tips on how to bar your doors and windows, e-mail Stoll at rstoll@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.