Prison Overcrowding in California: Shedding Lights on The Issue

In the sprawling state of California, a mounting concern casts a shadow over its criminal justice system: the relentless challenge of prison overcrowding. As the prison population continues to swell, the infrastructure designed to house and rehabilitate inmates finds itself straining under the weight of this complex issue. California's struggle with prison overcrowding has far-reaching. This essay delves into the multifaceted problem of prison overcrowding in California, shedding light on its causes, consequences, and potential solutions. By exploring the interplay of policy decisions, sentencing reform, and alternative approaches to incarceration, we aim to uncover the layers of this issue and advocate for a more sustainable and just criminal justice system in the Golden State.

Historical Context: Contributing Factors to Overcrowding in California

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with California being second only to Texas as the state with the highest rate of incarceration. Numerous historical reasons account for California’s prison overcrowding, including the war on drugs, which resulted in tougher sentencing for drug-related offenses; the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act, which resulted in mandatory minimum prison terms; and the three strikes law, imposed an automatic prison sentence of 25 years to life for persons with two prior serious criminal convictions who were then convicted of a third felony. Furthermore, unlike most other states, California instituted a mandatory three year parole term after release from prison, so that parolees could be sent to prison for a new crime or for lesser violations of parole, such as failing a drug test or failing to report. Given prison overcrowding, California struggled to provide adequate medical and mental health care for inmates, resulting in two major class action lawsuits: Coleman v. Brown in 1990 and Plata v. Brown in 2001. In both cases, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the prisoners and held that the delivery of medical and mental health care in prisons was so inadequate that it imposed cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These inadequacies were credited to state prison overcrowding. California responded by establishing new legislation, AB109, which allowed transfer of accountability for low-level offenders from the state to local counties. Despite efforts at remediation, California’s prison population continued to grow. By 2006, California’s prison system, designed to house only 79,650 inmates, had a population of 163,000 inmates. In May 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower U.S. District Court three-judge panel’s ruling that medical and mental health care for prison inmates continued to fall below the constitutional standard and that prison overcrowding was the “primary” cause of the constitutional violations. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s finding that “no other relief would remedy the violation.” Consequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% design capacity within 2 years, requiring a reduction of approximately 33,000 inmates. The court order granted California the flexibility to decide who should be released. In February 2015, California reached the court-ordered prison population target, and local counties became responsible for thousands of inmates, many of whom have serious mental illness, who were released from state prisons to county jails and/or the community. Each of California’s 58 counties received funds to implement realignment plans, the amount of which was proportional to the historical daily average of “triple-non” prisoners who claimed residence in that county prior to incarceration. Allocation of funding was left to the discretion of each individual county and was typically distributed among probation services, the sheriff’s department, additional jail capacity, health and treatment services, and other law enforcement. In February 2015, California reached the court-ordered prison population target, and local counties became responsible for thousands of inmates, many of whom have serious mental illness, who were released from state prisons to county jails and/or the community. Each of California’s 58 counties received funds to implement realignment plans, the amount of which was proportional to the historical daily average of “triple-non” prisoners who claimed residence in that county prior to incarceration. Allocation of funding was left to the discretion of each individual county and was typically distributed among probation services, the sheriff’s department, additional jail capacity, health and treatment services, and other law enforcement. Each individual county was responsible for creating a Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) to design the county’s realignment implementation plan. 

Benefits of Proposition 47 and 57

The objective of Prop 47 was to focus spending on serious offenses in a state with overcrowded prisons, invest the savings to support mental health and substance use disorder treatment as well as education, and increase substitutions to incarceration for low-level crimes. Prop 47 changed the lowest level nonviolent drug possession and petty theft crimes from felonies to simple misdemeanors. In particular, Prop 47 reduced certain drug possession felonies to misdemeanors and required misdemeanor sentencing for a variety of crimes, that does not exceed $950 in value. Prop 57 is an effort in sentencing reform, to reduce the prison population through early parole. Proponents say only non-violent offenders will be considered for early release. Proposition 57 allowed inmates to gross credits for good behavior and educational or rehabilitative accomplishments. 'Its essence is to provide an incentive,' said Gov Jerry Brown, who commanded the campaign. The measure provided for inmates to use credits to reduce time spent in prison which also made individuals convicted of nonviolent felony crimes who served their full sentences for their initial offense and passed screening for public security suitable for parole which in turn, made about 7,000 inmates instantly eligible. These changes will lead to improved inmate behavior and a safer prison environment for inmates and staff alike and give inmates skills and tools to be more productive members of society once they complete their incarceration and transition to supervision.

Unintended Consequences

With the intentions from AB109 and both Prop 47 and Prop 57 being good-willed, there were adverse consequences that did come with all three implementations. As a result, because of the implementation of AB109, it ended up filling the county jails with felons that were due to serve long-term sentences and allowed felons that had a history of violent charges to be released to minimal to no supervision based on their current commitment offense. This included those that are non-high-risk sexual offenders which shifted the jurisdiction from state parole to local county probation departments. It reduced the police’s ability to arrest repeated offenders of theft. The jails became full so those that committed misdemeanor offenses were not sentenced because there was no room to jail them due to felons being housed under AB109. Unintended results from Prop 57 allowed crimes that aren’t defined as violent, became non-violent. Such crimes included human trafficking of minor sex, hate crimes, arson, assault with a deadly weapon of a peace officer, first degree burglary, domestic violence, solicitation to commit murder, rape sodomy, oral copulation of unconscious person or by use of date rape drugs. Prop 47 spawned debate about whether persons who have been arrested would lose the motivation to register in treatment without a felony, especially if they are entering through voluntary means versus being court ordered or referred. Challengers point out that the law uses the state's definition of violent crime. Here are some heinous acts that the state of California considers 'non-violent' according to opponents of Prop 57: drive-by shooting, assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence, arson causing great bodily injury, lewd acts upon a child, and hostage taking. Also, a concern, Prop 57 does not allow authorities to take into consideration the convict's priors or plea-bargain status when determining early release priority.

Are the Laws Actually Working?

The laws were created to target a specific goal which is to reduce the overcrowding of our jails and prisons by restructuring the way sentencing is implemented for public safety. For some inmates that are released under this reform, it has been beneficial to them as they are able to reduce the recidivism and are able to have access to the much needed services to help them mainstream back into being a productive member of society by linking them to supportive services such as mental health and substance abuse programs. Working with them in a supportive way gives them the ability to make substantial changes in their lives. This measure of the laws that have been passed are working as proposed to a degree, however, there are parts that are not and have not been fully discussed or adjusted to accommodate the demand of inmates that are being released under the laws.

Christian Leaders and the Laws

For some Christian leaders, the laws that have been passed have given Christian leaders the ability to give hope to those that are trying to rehabilitate. The Diocese of San Bernardino has a ministry of restorative justice that reaches out to crime victims, family members and the perpetrators, and Prop. 57 “fits right into what we are doing,” said John Andrews, a spokesman for the diocese that serves all of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The opportunity that human beings have to redeem themselves from past sins and transgressions is central to the Christian faith,” Andrews said. “In the eyes of the church in California, we see Prop. 57 as providing a greater avenue for rehabilitation and redemption for people who have committed crimes while still managing to have safeguards that protect the public.” Romans 12:2 gives those who have been in the prison system a chance to overcome their past struggles of sinful behaviors as it states “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect”. Proverbs 24:16 is a meaningful and powerful scripture that gives inmates who are willing and wanting to take advantage of the services that the law offers even though they struggle to adjust immediately, “for the righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble in times of calamity”. If God sees no sin greater than the other, and forgiveness is the key to extending love towards an individual in need, then those who have these transgressions against them should be forgiven and granted an opportunity to have all resources needed to be made readily available to them for a greater chance of succeeding under the reform.

Conclusions: Modifications That Can Be Made

Having a reform to allow for decrease prisons and jails is a great step in the right direction to reduce the recidivism and institutionalized conditioning that develops from criminal addictive thinking and behaviors. With the laws of AB109, Prop 47 and Prop 57 changing the course of how crimes are viewed, and which crimes warrant severe penalty versus those that do not, presented considerable challenges at the systematic level. Although particular inmates are eligible for release under the new laws, greater discussion is needed on transitioning them from the state and local jails or prisons to the communities. A deeper, more structured and detailed language should be attached to the new laws so inmates with low-level, non-violent crimes are required and agree to participate in mental health and substance abuse treatment services to address the deeper-rooted causes to the criminal addictive thinking and behavior. Additionally, development of housing options made readily available to inmates transitioning back into the community should be accessible for them as well as training opportunities for employment. If the major barriers are not being addressed to help with the rehabilitation process, then inmates being release are with nothing in place to counter the behaviors that they display to get their needs met in the way they only know how to. County agency’s need better assistance and instruction on how to implement treatment to individuals and understanding of the laws so they can develop a systematic approach to intercept and engage the inmates coming out. Additional funding should be strategically given to county agencies to fully staff and create programs to accommodate the influx of offenders that are in need of the services as well as training on how to engage those who have been chronically institutionalized to gain better understanding of how they think, feel, and what unique struggles they have so treatment plans can be developed and individualized to meet the need of that individual for a better rate of success. 

References

1. Fellner, J. (2013). Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms. Human Rights Watch.

2. Jones, R. L. (2017). California’s Prison Problems: A Status Report. Public Policy Institute of California.

3. Mauer, M., & King, R. S. (2007). Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity. The Sentencing Project.

4. Austin, J., & Coventry, G. (2001). Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

5. Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2018). Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Waveland Press.

6. Garland, B., & Spohn, C. (2004). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice: Key Findings from the Literature. The Sentencing Project.

7. McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, Parenting, and Children's Mental Health. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 351-366.

8. Egelko, B. (2013). Brown’s Plan to Cut Prison Population Gets Mixed Reviews. San Francisco Chronicle.

9. Nellis, A. (2016). The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons. The Sentencing Project.

   Keep in mind:
   This is only a sample.

   Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

   Get custom essay

10. Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2013). Can boosting the employment rates of ex-offenders reduce crime?. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 759-803.