MORE PRISONS NOT THE ONLY ANSWER

Reforming Drug Laws, Educational System Would Also Reduce Overcrowding

Options for mitigating California's prison overcrowding include
building our way into a prison industrial complex, reforming
sentencing laws and addressing the causes underlying criminal conduct.

The first option, growing the prison system, holds the historical and
present advantage. In 2001, the prison budget totaled $4.1 billion.
Since then, the budget for the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation has more than doubled and calls for $8.75 billion in
spending in 2006-07. Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to expand the system by
another 78,000 beds via billions in additional debt financing.

The second option, sentencing reform, has received, if not a tepid
response, then at least not a ringing endorsement. In 2004,
Californians defeated a ballot initiative designed to reform the
"three strikes, you're out" law, which imposes life prison sentences
of at least 25 years on repeat offenders, even if their "third strike"
offense is for a nonserious felony such as drug possession or petty
theft with a prior conviction.

Although many Californians blanch at the prospect of retooling "three
strikes," they may wish to consider revisiting punishment of
nonviolent offenders by further reforming of California's antiquated
drug laws.

Presently, a drug user apprehended under the influence of a controlled
substance faces mandatory jail for 90 days to a year. However, the
same user who is caught with some of his or her stash not yet consumed
is likely to be charged with a felony, possession of a controlled substance.

Even after the passage of Proposition 36, the drug-treatment
initiative, California prisons still hold nearly 15,000 inmates
serving sentences for simple drug possession, including 681 serving
life sentences for simple possession as a third strike.

The arguments for imprisoning drug users typically fall into two
categories: Many users are addicts who feed their addiction by
committing other crimes such as burglary and theft. Other users and
addicts, those who don't respond to drug treatment, may benefit from
being forcibly detoxed via incarceration.

There are problems with both theories. While many addicts no doubt
steal, lie, cheat or prostitute themselves to support their habits,
individuals are sentenced to prison based on conduct not speculation
regarding their conduct. If the state wishes to imprison a thief, it
should be because he or she was actually caught stealing.

The reasoning behind the tough-love approach is likewise debatable.
Some drug users or addicts who do not respond to treatment or shock
incarceration in county jail may benefit from a prison commitment.
However, is it worth the $34,000 annual cost to taxpayers,
particularly since it is commonly reported that drugs are readily
available in prison?

Moreover, does it make sense to condemn the drug possessor to the
lifetime stigma of a felony conviction, while consigning his simply
intoxicated colleague to a misdemeanor conviction?

The third option for reducing prison overcrowding involves addressing
the underlying causes of criminal conduct. As a rule, persons commit
crimes either because they are immoral, intoxicated, make an
ill-considered judgment, suffer from a mental disability or because
they lack the skills to economically compete or survive. Admittedly,
it is difficult to legislate improvement of one's judgment, moral
code, sobriety or mental health.

Under our present "No Child Left Behind" education mandates, a
one-size-fits-all approach rules. Irrespective of whether a child
might thrive as a tradesman or craftsman, he or she is channeled into
the same academic regimen as a gifted classmate.

The European model suggests an alternative. While departing from the
egalitarian ideal, it recognizes that no two children are alike. Many
children will benefit from a college preparatory education. Others'
potential and value may not be fully realized through standardized
testing, but instead through providing them with real skills to
compete in the marketplace.

Ultimately, whether one agrees with sentencing or education reform,
change will occur in our prison system, even if only in the form of
continued budget increases and bond packages designed to increase our
ability to incarcerate more people for greater periods of time.