State should invest in probation camps

Every society must exercise a corrective mechanism to punish
those who break the law, and to ensure such lawbreaking does not
continue to occur.

In the United States, some hope to accomplish this through
stricter incarceration laws. Others see rehabilitation and
education as a means of improving both inmates’ lives and
society as a whole.

But as the need for budget cuts tempts our governor to slash
funding for juvenile probation camps, which aim to educate and
rehabilitate less serious offenders, judges will be forced either
to send youth offenders home or sentence them to longer terms in
the much harsher California Youth Authority detention facilities.
Such a move is shortsighted and will be harmful for the future of
our state.

As always, the reason for these cuts is a raw financial
consideration. Eighty-two million dollars would be trimmed from Los
Angeles County’s probation department, and even more money
would be lost with the shift of property taxes away from counties.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget plan will slash $134
million specifically earmarked toward crime prevention and
treatment.

Cutting the juvenile probation camps will likely result in
considerable savings for every county, which will go a long way
towards cutting and balancing the budget. Inmates would either be
sent home or sent to the far more serious CYA detention
facilities.

But all of this could be avoided with a small tax hike on the
very wealthiest citizens of our state.

The California Youth Authority’s strictest detention
facilities strike fear in the hearts of many juvenile offenders.
These centers are known among inmates as “gladiator
schools,” a term brought to attention in former Crips gang
member Sanyika Shakur’s autobiography, “Monster: The
Autobiography of an L.A. Gang Member.” CYA prisoner
facilities are designed to house more serious offenders, some
incarcerated for violent crimes like rape and murder.

Some of these offenders are a real threat to society; many of
them are serving in juvenile prisons only because a prosecutor
chooses not to try them as adults. Inmates in these facilities also
vary considerably in age, with some as old as 25.

Inmates in these stricter facilities have been subject to abuse
and mismanagement that serve only to continue to harden individuals
instead of helping them. In one instance, inmates were forced to
kneel on a gym floor, handcuffed, for hours on end. These practices
have led to lawsuits and largely can be blamed on understaffing and
a lack of money. Studies have shown that youths incarcerated in
more serious facilities are less likely to change their behavior
and improve their lives.

In contrast, probation camps house less serious offenders who
may have personal or educational difficulties but generally are
more amenable to change. Inmates receive educational assistance
and, when possible, mentorship. Youths also are allowed to engage
in normal adolescent activities such as sports, and the general
atmosphere of the probation camps is far less harsh that those of
the CYA’s most strict facilities.

There is also a difference in the severity of the crimes
committed by those in probation camps ““ most are not serving
time for violent crimes. Furthermore, the focus on education and
reform is highly effective: In Los Angeles County, 74 percent of
these inmates do not return to the justice system again.

Clearly, it would be wise to invest money where it would be most
effective in bringing about a change. Some youths demonstrate a
sincere desire to reform and are not much of a threat to
society.

There is a real chance for these youths to help improve society
and themselves by leading productive lives. They deserve the
opportunity to effect change in their lives. Thus, whenever
possible, youth camps ““ which emphasize education and
rehabilitation ““ are a much better option for our state as a
whole.

Like many public policies, youth incarceration is not an issue
that is flashy or popular for discussion, but it still merits very
serious attention. The actions taken now concerning these children
shape the future of our society. We can choose to build a more
just, rational and, yes, productive society by investing in youth
now.

Having tutored incarcerated youth in probation camps, I can say
many of these adolescents have the potential and desire to improve
but simply need some support. They are in a crucial time in their
lives, and how much a society invests in them will determine how
much they can give back to their communities ““ and ultimately
themselves.

A little bit of money from the most privileged residents of our
state will go a long way in making a difference. Will we give our
youth the support they need, or will we turn our backs in callous
indifference?

Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail
him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *