April 26, 2007

On the prison deal

With a prison deal in hand, legislative leaders seem intent on rushing it through both houses of the Legislature today, before lobbyists for two of the state's most powerful unions -- the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the Service Employees International Union -- can peel away support from the rank and file members. This is a pretty amazing turn of events in a Legislature that has long been subject to the infuence of both unions.

In this case, leaders from both parties decided that they did not want to risk a federal takeover of the prison system because of overcrowded conditions. The Democrats feared that a court takeover would mean a blank check and a fiscal "black hole" that would drain the treasury and endanger other programs. The Republicans feared that court involvement might mean the release of dangerous felons. Together, they agreed on a package that adds more prison beds, beefs up rehabilitation programs and promises aggressive oversight of the Schwarzenegger Administration's management of the programs.

Some people will never be happy with any fix that includes new prison beds. But with 16,000 inmates sleeping in gymnasiums and day rooms, with the state's population growing steadily, and with a court-appointed overseer of the prison health system ordering thousands more medical beds, a reform-only solution was never in the cards. This plan at least has the virtue of holding the state's prison managers accountable for their future performance. And it does include plans for an expansion of drug treatment, vocational and education programs, and a requirement that every inmate be evaluated to determine his or her potential to benefit from rehabilitation programs. The second phase of the construction program could not go forward unless the prisons were meeting benchmarks for implementing those new programs.

The unions seem most upset about a provision that would temporarily allow more out-of-state transfers of inmates as a safety-valve to relieve overcrowding. The SEIU also opposes a plan to move non-violent female prisoners into community facilities that might be run by private companies or served by non-profit agencies. That proposal is not part of this plan but could get new life from the momentum created here. The CCPOA, meanwhile, is without a contract and stands to lose leverage with Schwarzenegger if the Legislature helps him reduce the heat the state is getting from the federal courts.

One big idea that's not in this package, a sentencing reform commission, will probably come later this spring or summer. The idea is supported by Democrats in the Legislature, by Schwarzenegger and by the prison guards union in one form or another. It is opposed by most Republicans. But it would take only a majority vote to pass a bill creating the panel. That's something that can be worked out by the Democrats and the governor in a separate deal. Putting it into this bipartisan package would have hopelessly complicated the politics involved and blocked bipartisan agreement on the rest of the package.

The same may be true of a proposal to allow the state to end parole for certain ex-cons who stay clean for 12 months after being released from prison. That's not in this package but could very well happen anyway, down the road.

One last point: some activists seem to be calling on the federal judges to order a reduction in the state's prison population rather than a plan to accommodate the current level of inmates and future growth. That might be a desirable outcome. But it is not the job of the courts. In a democracy, the people, through their representatives (and in California, through the initiative) get to decide how long people should remain in prison for certain crimes. The federal courts can weigh in on whether the conditions inside those prisons meet the minimum standards required by the Constitution. But they have no place in deciding what level of incarceration is best for the state.

Posted by dweintraub on April 26, 2007 6:13 AM