Diana Ramirez

Jaya Dubey
Writing 39C
June 3, 2014
Say Yes to the Funding of Rehabilitation Centers
The ongoing problem of prison overcrowding in the state of California has and
continues to harm the convicts held in jammed prisons. According to a publication on mass
incarceration written by Peter Wagner and Leah Sakala, who are both occupied with the effects
high prison incarceration rates carry, there are about 2.4 million individuals being held in state
prisons, federal prisons, military prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and local jails in the
United
States. In
the image
located to
your right,
there is a
graph
which
indicates
the current
amount of
prisoners
that are incarcerated. Incarceration rates are in elevation; therefore creating several demands, one
is a higher need in room/space to house convicts. However, these demands have not been
addressed fittingly; prisons have been housing inmates and surpassing the maximum capacity by
making use of three bedded bunk beds, as well as large gyms. The problem of prison
overcrowding in California, is caused by the strict laws enacted and passed in the 20th century;
as well as the letdown of county officials who have failed to balance alternative solutions to
alleviate this matter. As a result, there are currently unhealthy overcrowded prison environments,
the enforcement of the Three Strikes Law is being taken into action, and recidivism rates are not
improving.
How did prisons in California get to be so outrageously congested in the first
place? Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s the public began to feel fear due to the increase of
crime and so they demanded safety. Strict sentencing laws came about; there was a total increase
of 1,000 laws which were enacted with concerns to this fear. Strict sentencing laws lead to more
criminals in prisons. This means more funding has gone to prisons and less funding to alternative
resources for convicts, such as rehabilitation centers. Erin Fuchs, a previous senior reporter at
Law360, states, these days, prisoners get released without any skills and often end up back in
prison on parole violations. Nearly 65% of California's inmates go back to prison again within
just three years (Fuchs). In the image located
in the right, we can see how due to the Three
Strikes Law, prisoners are being dumped into
overcrowded prisons and then they are early
released by U.S. Supreme Court orders. This
shows high recidivism rates, and as
criminologist Joan Mar positions, we play
catch and release" (Mar). We are capturing and imprisoning individuals through the use of the
Three Strikes Law then we release them and capture them once again, it has turned into an
ongoing revolving process. However, there are alternative solutions that can be taken into
account to alleviate this issue of prison overcrowding.
California State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg submitted a proposal which
offers grants to rehabilitation groups for drug, alcohol and mental health groups which have
proven lower recidivism rates. Senator Darrells proposal helps alleviate the problem of prison
overcrowding by providing convicts with resources in order for them to get their life back on
track and therefore contribute to their communities in a positive and beneficial manner; the cost
of Darrells proposal would be $200 million annually for three years going towards rehabilitation
centers as opposed to Governor Jerry Browns proposal of $315 million for one year and $415
million for the preceding two years which would be given to prisons. Senator Darrells proposal
claims there will successfully be a reduction in the overcrowding of prisons, and lower rates of
recidivism can be supported based on a 2009 state program which condensed innovative prison
admissions by 9,600.
The mistreatment of prisoners is one of the many effects of prison overcrowding in
California. Since the environments in prisons are currently exceeding their maximum capacity,
there are certain limitations to the distributions of resources for inmates. These resources include
drug facilities, mental health programs, alcohol prevention programs, and other usable resources
that are necessary for prisoners to be involved in. In a YouTube video provided by Stephanie
Mencrimer, a writer who covers legal affairs and domestic policies for Mother Jones; mental
health expert Henry Craig makes a shocking statement about how the lack of rehabilitation
centers in communities leads to the incarceration of mentally ill individuals. Craig states, there
are few if any community based mental health resources available to people, and the criminal
justice system becomes the only response that a community has to somebody who is suffering
from serious mental illness. (Craig). These mentally ill prisoners need to be given alternative
resources, they should not be put in prisons where they are crowded and where frustration may
lead them to committing other crimes. By placing mentally ill convicts in prisons, their health is
put at risk due to the fact that their illnesses are now at further risk and potentially untreated.
Steinbergs solution would benefit these disabled convicts by allowing there to be more
rehabilitation centers such as mental health programs which can serve to not only improve their
health but keep them from committing further crimes. Mencrimer also provides in her newspaper
article that almost half of the prison populations in California are mentally ill. Lorenzo is an
ex-convict who was diagnosed with psychotic schizophrenia at the age of ten; he would go in
and out of jail for petty crimes which included him breaking into stores in order to avoid sleeping
in the streets. When you think about the seriousness of this mental illness, putting someone who
is diagnosed with psychotic schizophrenia in an overcrowded loud prison environment is not a
nice thought. Luckily, a Behavioral Health Court helped Lorenzo out by assigning him to a
mental health program where he was able to improve his health and even enroll in college to
further his education. If you think about the person that came out of the mental health program,
one is astonished with the results, becoming a college student after being an ex-convict is
significant progress. This shows that rehabilitation facilities like mental health programs do
reduce recidivism rates and help convicts improve their life; they come out of these rehabilitation
centers as positive contributors to the communities they came from.
The problem of prison overcrowding needs to be confronted at its root, working around
the problem will not ease or ultimately end and solve it. The root of prison overcrowding
involves high crime rates. High crime rates frighten the public, a scared public demands safety,
and the concerns of the public safety are what caused stricter sentencing laws to be enacted.
Along with the enforcement of strict sentencing laws there has been an increase in the amount of
individuals being incarcerated for low-level offenses. By investing money towards rehabilitation
programs, the root of the problem of prison overcrowding will be addressed; rehabilitation
programs will prepare ex-convicts with the means they need in order to contribute to a
community in a constructive and helpful mode. By investing money in prisons, there will simply
continue to be an increase in the overcrowding of prisons, new prisons may be opened to provide
more space for all the individuals being incarcerated but the root of the problem will remain.
George Gascn, a former police chief who is currently a district attorney, states, I have seen
low-level drug offenders arrested and convicted, spend a few months or years incarcerated, and
then come out and go right back to a life of drug addiction and crime (Gascon). Incarcerating
these low-level drug offenders is not stopping them from committing the same crimes again
and again; these individuals need to be provided with resources to better their lives, they should
not be put in environments such as congested prisons in which resources are limited due to the
exceeding capacity.
When comparing Senator Darrells proposal to Governor Browns proposal, there is a
significant difference between the cost and effects of both proposals. Governor Browns
proposal, assures there will be a decrease in the amount of convicts in prisons within three years
if the country makes a contribution of $315 million the first year, and then increase the
contribution to $415 for the next two years. Alameda County Supervisor, Keith Carson, states
that implementing the governors proposal would mean that taxpayers would continue to spend
more than $50,000 per inmate to incarcerate someone in state prison, while doing nothing to
disrupt the pipeline back to prison (Carson). Why should we spend so much money on a
potential solution that will not end the initial cause of the problem; it is time to try something
new. Senator Darrells proposal asks for $200 million which will be spent on rehabilitation
centers which aim to improve the behavior of criminals in order to make them better citizens. By
investing money in rehabilitation centers, recidivism rates will significantly decrease and
therefore reduce crime rates, alleviate public fear, and increase the public safety.
With recidivism as one of the underlying problems of the mass incarceration and prison
overcrowding in California, it is important to consider whether Steinbergs solution will
effectively work to reduce not only the size of the
overcrowding populations in prisons but recidivism rates
as well. In 2009 Senator Mark Leno generated a grant
program through the Bill SB678, which funded probation
programs. As quoted to your right, the purpose of the Bill
serves to help juveniles stay out of a criminal life and
become positive contributors to the communities they
came from. When proposing a similar solution to the
problem of prison overcrowding, Senator Steinberg
referred to the Bill SB678 stating, the Senate plan is modeled on a 2009 state program that
reduced new prison admissions by nearly 9,600. (Legislative Analysts Office). As Steinbergs
statement mentions, the entrance of prisons was condensed by roughly 9,600 inmates. When
thinking about the efficiency this 2009 state program had, it definitely addressed the root of the
problem; a significant amount of prisoners were attended and assisted in order to mend a better
lifestyle.
When intending to resolve a chronic problem like the overcrowding of prisons in
California it is crucial to take into account those who support solutions such as the one Steinberg
proposed. Steinbergs supporters include about sixteen Democratic senators as well as a
significant number of attorneys for the prisoners (McGreevy). According to the Dean of Law
School at the University of California Irvine, Erwin Chemerinsky, convincing judges about this
alternative will not be easy unless it is credibly backed up with evidence that it will be effective
in the process of solving the issue. Chemerinsky stated, "I think the court wants to be sure this is
not another delay, (McGreevy). Chemerinskys statement is reasonable when analyzing
solutions, the fact that he mentions that judges wouldnt want to witness a second delay
implicates that Browns solution has not been effective in solving the problem of prison
overcrowding.
For many, Steinbergs solution sounds both efficient and worthy to invest in; but just as it
has its supporters, it has its opponents. Governor Jerry Brown is one of the biggest opponents to
Steinbergs solution simply because he presents a different point of view to the solution of prison
overcrowding. Brown funds the prisons themselves by giving them more money to be able to
make room to incarcerate a larger number of prisoners. Although Browns solution provides
room for more prisoners, it does not efficiently contribute to attacking the root of the problem; it
is a temporary solution that will only worsen the problem in the long run. Funding prisons and
investing money to buy more beds for prisoners to sleep in simply disguises as a solution to
the problem of prison overcrowding. But if we think more analytically as well as critically, if we
continue to make room for more convicts now, we will continue to increase the problem and will
later on have a bigger problem to solve. Browns solution does in fact sounds like a decent and
efficient solution but it is a temporary solution used to ease the concern of the public, in the
following figure there is a graph
which indicates that the plan will
accord with the standards the court
is demanding; and as we can see
prisons most likely wont go over
the standard maximum. Browns
solution meets the standards which
are currently demanded, but will
this solution continue to work? The
answer is that it will solve the
problem temporarily but it will not serve to address the problem in the future. In the graph
located to your right, we can see
that prison populations will once
again begin to exceed the limit
which is presented by the dark
blue line. According to a report
done by the Legislative
Analysts Office, the
administration is currently
considering alternatives to
contracting for additional prison
beds indefinitely to
maintain longterm compliance with the cap. However, until such alternatives are implemented,
the state will likely need to continue spending nearly $500 million annually on contract beds in
order to maintain compliance with the prison population cap (LAO). The underlying problem
here is that tremendous amounts of money are being given and used to buy more beds to room
many of these convicts; this a significantly large amount of money contributed to what is a short-
term solution to the problem. It would be a smarter, better, and more effectual choice if this
amount of money or even less, would be invested in rehabilitation facilities that would decrease
prison sizes, reduce crime rates, decrease recidivism rates, and put an end to the initial problem
of the overcrowding of prisons. When comparing the two graphs presented above, it is
reasonable to conclude that although Browns solution addresses the current demand for a
reduction in populations, it will not do any significant contribution to decrease the basis of the
problem and in due course will lead to the overcrowding of prisons once again; resulting in a
revolving problem.
The present problem of prison overcrowding and mass incarceration demands a final
solution or at least one that will effectively diminish and ease prison sizes for a long-term period.
It is time to stop being afraid of change or close-minded about bringing about change, and time
to try something new by putting aside Browns funding to prisons and more beds; as we learned,
he already had two opportunities to solve the issue. The problem currently needs to be
confronted and addressed at its root, and rather than working around the problem we should
work to end the problem. It is time for us to take action now that we know what is being done to
solve this ongoing problem, by simply informing others about the inefficiency in the way the
problem is being addressed; we are serving as a contribution which will lead to better solutions.
Lets create optimistic mentalities rather than negative ones, and motivate others to learn about
the seriousness and fast growing effects of prison overcrowding in California. Make your voice
heard and together we will uphold recovering and in effect solutions to the problem.