How do we judge our success?

With nearly one third of California’s budget being spent on our correctional system, at what point is the spending justified? When can we tell if the correctional system is successful? There are a multitude of problems with correctional systems, not only in California but also throughout the country and beyond our borders. A disproportionately high number of minorities are imprisoned, without any clear, concise justification. Correctional inmates receive free education, while law-abiding college students are struggling to pay the ever-rising cost of tuition.

Also, it has not been shown that prison can rehabilitate inmates. In fact, in some cases, the opposite is true. For example, the Stanford Prison Experiment showcased the prison mentality found in everyday citizens after having completed a "mock" prison sentence. The Stanford Prison Experiment assigned “psychologically normal, healthy college students” as prisoners and prison guards in a mock prison environment. Though only in a basement, these students quickly assimilated to the “prison” mentality. The guards and inmates were allowed to engage freely in conversation, however 90% of the conversations throughout the faux prison were related to “prison” issues. This experiment was a shocking psychological breakthrough that leaves many questions unanswered. Is the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation rehabilitating inmates or creating them?

Whether or not California’s correctional system rehabilitates offenders, one thing is certain: California needs a correctional system. Many objections and debates have arisen over the uncertain success or failure of our system, but the safety it provides our communities is often overlooked. Without California’s Prison System and the loyal team of Correctional Officers it employs, California would not function. It is an everyday struggle for the men and women of California’s correctional system to do their job. Their commitment to the safety of others is grossly underappreciated, and is a vital role in maintaining the state of California.

California: Leading The Way In Parole

Prisons are currently expanding at an alarmingly high rate. Over the past two decades, the incarceration rate in America has increased four-fold. This type of increase in numbers is having some serious repercussions for the United States. Currently, an African-American male has a 29 percent lifetime chance of serving more than a year in prison. Subsequently, in seven states, a quarter of the African-American male population has been prohibited from voting. Also, at any given time, it is likely that two percent of the population of children within the United States has a mother or father in prison. This accounts for 1.5 million children without a mother or father present in their lives. But while the increase in incarceration is having a large effect on the population, it is placing an even greater burden on our parole systems.

As more and more people are being incarcerated, more and more inmates are being released on parole. Today, nearly one in five parolees in America lives in California. In fact, California is now the national leader in returning parolees to prison. The return rate of parolees to prison has increased 30 times from 1980 to 2000, and nearly two-thirds of current prison admissions in California are for parole violations. Nationally, the number of violators returned to prison has increased 600 percent. In California, the number of violators returned to prison increased 2,884 percent. While some argue that parole reduces the costs of incarceration in California, the savings have yet to be seen.

Housing parole violators is very expensive for the state of California. It has been estimated that housing parole violators has cost California taxpayers $900 million a year. If California were to reduce their parole revocations to that of the national average of one-third, compared to the current two-thirds, Californians would save an estimated $500 million a year. Unfortunately, the repercussions of such an extensive use of parole in California has yet to be determined. The increase in the use of parole is so recent that not much has been studied in regards to California’s parole violations policies and the reduction of recidivism rates. Parole is an undoubtedly useful tool in America, as removing convicted felons from the streets can only help to curb the rising crime rates in this desperate economy. However, the point at which returning parole violators to prison becomes more harmful than not has yet to be determined.

CDCR Vocational Programs for Inmates

A recent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) press release documented a graduation ceremony. This ceremony was held for 23 inmates from the California Institution for Men at Chino who successfully completed a marine technology and carpentry program. It is argued that the successful implementation and completion of this program by current inmates could help to reduce their chances of returning to prison by up to 25 percent. Subsequently, it is also argued that programs like the aforementioned are saving California taxpayers upwards of $35 million.

“Thanks to the effective training provided by CALPIA, we are far less likely to see these inmates in prison again,” said Matthew Cate, CDCR Secretary. “Not only is this great news for the graduates, but it also saves the taxpayers millions of dollars a year.” These programs are designed to help convicted offenders receive the necessary professional and technical skills to obtain gainful employment. Studies have shown that once paroled, inmates who have completed these programs are overall 25 percent less likely to return to prison than the regular prison inmate population. Specifically, studies have shown that Carpentry pre-Apprenticeship program graduates recidivate 18 percent, and graduates from the new Marine Technology Training Center recidivate only 6 percent. It is claimed that these programs save taxpayers million of dollars a year when compared to the costs of prosecution, custody, and subsequent parole when compared to the current 55 percent recidivism rate of the general prison population.

Inmates in California State Prisons receive training via CDCR and the California Prison Industry Authority (CALPIA) at not cost. Upon parole, CALPIA also provides each inmate graduate with a set of tools for their trade, and also pays their initial union dues. The average citizen is not so lucky. Seattle Central Community College offers a similar Marine Carpentry program. It is a six-quarter program, and the tuition for the 18-credit course load for a non-resident is $2,751.80 per quarter. Students are also required to pay associated fees with tuition (student activity fee, computer lab fee, etc.), maintenance lab fees, and the cost of supplies and equipment. All totaled, an average student would spend close to $3,000 a quarter, which amounts to $18,000 at the end of six-quarters. Is it fair that law-abiding citizens are required to come up with this money on their own? And convicted felons are receiving this type of training at no cost, regardless of the fact that a good percentage of them will squander away their opportunity and eventually return to prison?

Oakland Tragedy

On Saturday, March 21st, 2009, parolee Lovelle Mixon was pulled over by two Oakland Police Department motorcycle cops on a routine traffic stop. Seconds later, Mixon shot them both to death. Later, in a nearby building where he was hiding, Mixon shot and killed two SWAT members. In a matter of approximately four hours, an ex-con killed four valued members of the Oakland Police Department. It was the deadliest attack on California law enforcement since the murder of four CHP officers in the Santa Clarita Valley in 1970. It was also the deadliest attack on officers that the Oakland Police Department has ever experienced.

Lovelle Mixon was a recently paroled felon in the state of California, who, at the time of the shootings, was wanted for violating his parole. He was deemed a “parolee-at-large” for not having reported subsequent to his release from prison. Mixon’s commitment offense was assault with a deadly weapon, but he had a long criminal history. He had been a suspect in a murder, but charges were later dropped due to lack of evidence. Most recently, DNA evidence had linked Mixon to a rape case that occurred in 2008.

“Mixon's killing spree is a horrible aberration, his plight as an unemployed, ex-felon isn't. There are tens of thousands like him on America's streets.” It had been estimated that more than 600,000 offenders are released from prison each year, each of which carry a felony conviction to report to potential employers. The National Institute of Justice found that 60% of ex-felon offenders remain unemployed a year after their release. Other studies have shown that more than 30% of these offenders live on the streets because they can’t find housing. Judging by these figures, there are 180,000 ex-cons living on the streets, virtually untraceable. And since nearly 60% of violent felons are repeat offenders, there are roughly 108,000 homeless, violent ex-cons living on the streets.

My deepest and most sincere apologies go out to the family and friends of these four brave officers.

[Update: Contributions can be made to trust funds set up for the families of the four officers killed. Wire transfers may be made directly to the following Merrill Lynch accounts: The Dunakin Children's Family Trust, Acct. No. 204-04065; The Romans Children's Family Trust, Acct. No. 204-04066; and The Sakai Family Trust, Acct. No. 204-04064. No fund had been set up as of Monday afternoon on behalf of Hege, who had no children. Individual checks can also be made out to the families and mailed to the Oakland Police Officer's Association, Attn: Rennee Hassna, 555 5th Street, Oakland, CA, 94607. Make checks payable to the Dunakin Children's Family Trust; the Romans Children's Family Trust; Sakai Family Trust.]

GPS Safety Blanket

California has used GPS monitoring on parolees and probationers since 2005. Placing sex offenders on GPS monitoring systems has helped California feel safer in the midst of criminals. The number of individuals on GPS monitoring has been steadily rising since 2005, with California being the only state where all paroled sex offenders are monitored. GPS monitors have been proven to reduce crime due to a number of factors. Sex offenders are continuously being monitored, which deters the chance of recidivism. GPS also gives law enforcement a chance to catch sex offenders before commit any offenses. Though GPS has proven to help somewhat, it still falls under heavy criticisms. Are GPS monitoring and residency restrictions really helping, or are they merely a safety blanket for concerned parents?

A main criticism of GPS monitoring and residency restrictions of sex offenders stems from the way in which they are enacted. In her article "Applying the Lessons of GPS Monitoring of Batterers to Sex Offenders," Pamela Foohey states, "Legislation aimed at preventing sex offenders from re-offending often comes about in response to public outcry after a convicted sex offender re-offends or merely moves to a particular neighborhood, town, or state." It seems that these restrictions come about not out of a dire need to protect our children, but out of the necessity to ease the worrying minds of parents. Also, it has been argued that GPS monitoring does little to deter recidivism, because sex offenders generally operate out of a preference for a victim’s particular characteristics, not their location.

The specifics on legislation regarding GPS monitoring and residency restrictions are not perfect. They have been called over inclusive, because they are generally designed to address the problems potential strangers pose to children. It does not take into account that most victims of sex offenses are assaulted by acquaintances, family members, or people they know. On the other side, these specific legislations have also been argued to be under inclusive. They do not prevent sex offenders from coming into contact with victims; they simply stop them from coming into contact with certain locations. Residency restrictions have been criticized because sex offenders do not go next door to offend, rather they choose to offend elsewhere in order to not be detected.

Protecting Our Children

Parents can now breathe a minor sigh of relief, as a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation press release has documented that “every sex offender on state parole in California is now being monitored by GPS technology.” This recent development occurred six months ahead of a proposed schedule, and allows parole agents to know the location of registered sex offenders on their caseloads 24 hours a day. This is a huge accomplishment, stemming from the passage of Proposition 83 by California voters on November 7, 2006, more widely known as “Jessica’s Law.”

When Jessica’s Law was passed, it required that “every paroled sex offender be monitored by GPS.” This group of parolees includes 6,622 active sex offenders paroled in California, all of whom are now equipped with ankle bracelets that transmit their location any time, any place. This huge leap in public safety has catapulted California into the top spot in the nation for using GPS technology to track sex offenders. It is a much-needed advance, as California currently has the highest population of sex offenders in the nation.

Not only do we monitor sex offender locations, California is also required to enforce a 2,000-foot restriction on sex offenders. Parole agents monitor the whereabouts of parolees on their caseloads to ensure they never touch foot near schools, parks, or anywhere children could reasonably expect to congregate. Also, Jessica’s law has the ability to increase sex crime related sentences, for example some sex crimes that victimize children now carry a mandatory life sentence. Jessica’s law even restricts the chance for parole of some sex offenders, as it has increased the number of sex offenders eligible to be civilly committed to mental health departments for treatment rather than being released.

Inmates Living Next Door

As California’s inmate population rises, citizens in California tend to grow more and more comfortable with the rate of crime, no matter what the current percentage is. Unfortunately, Californians should not rest easy, because a California Policy Research Center brief states that the population seems “unaware that 90% of those who enter prisons eventually return to the community – most in less than two years.” Almost as quick as California is locking them in penitentiaries, prisoners are being released into our communities. An increasing prison population may not mean added safety for our state, because those inmates eventually return to our communities, this time with years of prison incarceration added to their criminal belts.

Between 1995 and 2000, the population of released prison inmates on parole quadrupled. During that same time, the percentage of inmates paroled (7.8%) began to increase even more rapidly than the rate at which California’s prison populations are increasing (4.8%). Even though media reports have people feeling comforted with the increase in the prison population, the media has failed to cover both spectrums of the issue. We are not incarcerating as many criminals as we are releasing.

Determinate sentencing drastically changed the way prisoners are released. At one time, prisoners were subject to boards before being released. The inmate had to prove they were rehabilitated and had earned their release. Determinate sentences have changed our procedures, as sentences are now equipped with fixed terms and automatic parole dates. This ultimately led to the drastic increase in California’s parolee population, meaning more criminals are being released into our communities now than ever before.