State Budget

OPEN THE PRISON DOOR TO SAVINGS

Freeing 10,000 Nonviolent Drug Offenders Could Avert Painful Cuts To
the Court System.

Two years ago, California voters overwhelmingly revised the way courts
deal with people convicted of possessing drugs for their personal use:
Instead of prison, they would receive treatment. But about 10,000
nondangerous drug offenders still languish in state prison because the
courts have interpreted Proposition 36 to apply only to individuals
sentenced after the measure went into effect. And therein lies an
opportunity to reduce the state's projected $34.5-billion budget
deficit -- and respect the will of California voters.

The legislative analyst's office, a bipartisan government agency that
provides fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature, recently
suggested that lawmakers "put everything on the table when considering
solutions" to the budget crisis. Among the options was the early
release of prisoners. One proposal suggested shaving the sentences of
most inmates by up to 12 months, with projected savings estimated at
nearly $250 million.

This approach would be similar to one used in other deficit-plagued
states. In Kentucky, for example, the governor recently ordered
hundreds of prison inmates released in order to reduce his state's
deficit. Although the mass commutation was designed to free only
low-risk offenders, some who had committed serious crimes like
burglary and arson slipped through the cracks. Critics charged that
the governor was compromising safety to save dollars.

Kentucky's answer to its deficit would probably face steep opposition
here. California is, after all, the state that embraced the
three-strikes law in 1994 and then reprised its tough-on-crime tack by
approving the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act in 2000,
which increased punishment for juvenile offenders and gang members.

A solution proposed in Kansas is more in keeping with California's
sentiments toward drug users. This month, a Kansas sentencing
commission will recommend to the Legislature that inmates serving time
for drug possession and who have no record of violent crimes or drug
trafficking be immediately released from prison and placed in
rehabilitation programs. It concluded that the plan would save the
state millions because drug treatment in Kansas annually costs about
$2,500 per addict, compared with the $21,000 a year required to keep
him or her behind bars.

Extending Proposition 36 to cover all nonviolent drug offenders in
California prisons would similarly reduce the state's budget deficit,
but the potential savings here could be even greater. In June, the
state Department of Corrections reported that about 15,000 inmates are
serving time for simple possession of drugs like cocaine and
methamphetamine. About one-third of them would not qualify for release
under a broadened Proposition 36 because the law excludes most
defendants with "strikes" on their record. But that still leaves some
10,000 inmates.

According to the Department of Corrections, it costs an average of
$26,000 a year to house an inmate. A typical year of treatment has a
price tag of about $4,000. Thus, freeing those 10,000 drug offenders
would save California about $220 million.

How much money is that? Gov. Gray Davis' most recent deficit-reduction
proposals for the criminal justice system do not include early release
of prisoners. Yet he would cut funding for courts by $60 million, trim
crime victims' services and public safety grants by $3.6 million and
shorten training for prison correctional officers from 16 to 12 weeks
to save $1.3 million.

True, the specter of thousands of drug-addicted convicts suddenly on
the streets may scare people into accepting draconian budget cuts --
even higher taxes. But this imagined horror is chimerical. Those
eligible for release would be screened to assure that they were not
dangerous, and heavily addicted defendants would not be released into
the community but to live-in, lock-down residential drug-treatment
facilities and halfway houses. Parole officers would closely supervise
addicts, who would be tested for drugs to ensure they stayed on the
road to recovery.

What's more, extending Proposition 36 to drug offenders in prison
could promote public safety. With the savings realized, courts could
be fully funded to ensure prosecution of dangerous criminals; victims'
services would not have to be cut; and correctional personnel would
receive the training they needed to keep truly dangerous felons safely
behind bars.

A report issued in September by the Los Angeles Department of Health
Services indicated that Proposition 36 is a success, with 80% of drug
offenders taking part in treatment. All the more reason for the
Legislature to amend the law to provide that drug rehabilitation be
extended to all nondangerous addicted offenders convicted of simple
possession.

This is a rare opportunity for fiscally correct justice, and it
shouldn't be passed up.