The Fear Mongering of Early Release
It amazes me to hear of all the fear mongering and panic spread in response to any talk of early prison releases.History has proven repeatedly that early releases—releasing people who will get out anyway—does not culminate into significant crime spikes.
To illustrate, in 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Sixth Amendment, in Gideon v. Wainwright, as fulfilling the need to grant poor people accused of felonies the right to counsel. As a result, the 1,252 detained indigent Floridians who weren’t afforded counsel were point blank released. Fear and hysteria were understandably rampant, yet 28 months later the FDC found their recidivism rate amounted to a mere 13.6 percent.
Furthermore, history has proven that the mass demonization of prisoners as “dangerous” is Politics 101. The facts: The vast majority of imprisoned people made a mistake and simply wish to peacefully do their time and stay out of the way. Likewise, the vast majority of prison guards are professional/ In either case, if the bad apples ruled the system would completely implode.
Early releases here in California have proven no different. In the 70s, under Senate Bill 42, Governor Jerry Brown released 11,000 prisoners, the majority of them lifers; with no significant crime increase. Moreover, due to the same type of overcrowding the prison system is experiencing, the Los Angeles County Jail system has been doing early releases as a matter of course for over a decade.
Considering that we’re spending 45 percent more on prisons than the university system, and that the state budget is still $20 billion in the hole, I think early releases are long overdue. Just think, $49,000 per prisoner annually. That’s almost a salaried teacher’s pay. Yet we’re keeping the prisoners and releasing the teachers!
Indeed, these prisoners are no more dangerous than singer Chris Brown, who pled guilty to a domestic violence case or film director Roman Polanski, who accepted a plea deal for statutory rape. However, these proposed felons are non-violent.
Sources:
American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, 59, quoted in ronald L. Goldfarb and Linda R. Singer, After Conviction (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1973) p. 183
DeWayne Wickham, “Polanski’s Supporters Look Past Pedophilia,” USA Today, October 27, 2009: 11A
Fay Knopp and Jon Regeir, Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolistionists (Prison Research Education Action Project, Syracuse, N.Y., 1976, 2005) p. 39-41
Henry J. Steadman and Gary Keveles, The Community Adjustment and Criminal Activity of the Baxsrom Patients: 1966-1970, American Journal of Psychiatry, 129
(1972) pp. 304-310
posted by K Williams at 7:35 PM
3 Comments:
I tend to agree with you, releasing inmates early won't spike crime up, but 90% of the released inmates will either violate or catch a new case and return to prison. So releasing them early is simply a waste of time.
Dear Anonymous of February 23, 2010 (in response to "The Fear Mongering of Early Releases):
Thank you for your visit to my blog.
Your comments are appreciated and while we agree that releasing prisoners early will not cause a spike in crime, you shared the view that some 90% of those released would either "violate or catch a new case and return to prison." It seems you are informed above the average taxpayer, and that's a good thing. However, your facts neglect a significant facet of the new law opening the door for early release.
Under long standing former rules, a parolee could be sent back to prison for violating extremely technical rules such as "contact with law enforcement" or "association with other felons," inevitabilities when one is forced to parole in the same (high crime) community he was arrested in; or when family members are felons; or when those in the half-way house one is assigned to are felons. Rules such as these make the circumstances almost an assured impossibility to overcome.
No, after finally adhering to repeated recommendations from nonpartisan experts such as the panel of the Little Hoover Commission, or the Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Rehabilitation Programs, Governor Schwarzenegger and the (mostly Democratic arm of the)legislature approved measures abandoning these inhumane and fiscally irresponsible rules that were virtually the cause and effect of such disproportionate failure.
With the new rules the recidivism rate should now decline somewhat. The new concern among parolees, criminologists and even decision makers within CDCR is that some of the expected successes from the new rules will be offset by a $250 million cut in departmental rehabilitation programs.
The cuts could have a profound effect on the future of parolees. It's funny every year we see a parade of award winners accept their glamorous Oscars, Spingarns, and Golden globes. They cite a litany of people who helped them to succeed; who provided the path and the tools for thme to churn progress into success.
Yet this promising path for which the majority of the poor never gain access to, for the lack of guidance and neglect, the poor are, in effect, denied these life-changing tools by policy. We hear about the generational failure of our public schools but seldom make the connection to our generational plague of prisoners and parolees.
Nevertheless, Dear Anonymous, releasing prisoners early is not a waste of time, especially if they are released under reasonable rules and given the tools needed to succeed. Perhaps if we started scrutinizing the policies that make the California prison system the very worst in the nation, instead of vilifying the subjects of those policies, we'd all be better off.
Dortell Williams
Post a Comment
<< Home