PRISON GUARDS' UNDUE INFLUENCE

Have you ever wondered why California's prison population grew from 23,264
in 1980 to 160,846 in 2000? It is not because rapists and murderers are
finally getting their due; for the most part, that was already happening.

What has driven the growth of the prison system in California over the past
two decades is the 25-fold increase in the number of drug offenders
sentenced to prison under harsh new state sentencing laws for virtually
every offense imaginable. Because of these laws, California now has the
highest rate of drug-offender incarcerations in the nation -- 134 per
100,000. A rate that exceeds states such as Texas and Louisiana, where
compassion and sympathy for law breakers is not highly prized (49 per
100,000 and 106 per 100,000 respectively).

Those who argue that it is sensible policy to treat the self-destructive
tendencies of drug users the same way you treat the pathologically violent
have clearly prevailed. Consider the fact that today there are 20,862
inmates, approximately the same as the total prison population two decades
ago, serving prison sentence solely for drug possession.

These are people who are typically cycled through the system repeatedly and
then placed back on the street without ever having access to treatment or
support. Attempts to obtain treatment for their addiction are often met
with waiting lists that are months long.

In the meantime, they remain on the streets with few prospects and little
hope. Under these conditions, it is not long before many fall back into
self destructive drug use and eventually return to prison.

Although such a system seems counter to public safety interests, there are
powerful political forces at work in California that promote and sustain
the present system. Chief among these forces is the prison guards union.
Because the union benefits from prisons teeming with inmates, the guards
lavish campaign contributions on political candidates. The influence that
these campaign contributions buys allows them to pressure elected officials
to enact sentencing laws that keep inmates in prison longer, thus expanding
the overall pool of prisoners and creating a "need" for more prisons. The
guards union blatantly uses its political influence to promote the funding
of more prisons.

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36 on the
November ballot) which is strongly opposed by the guards union, is designed
to stop the revolving door of drug addiction by mandating treatment. Only
in the event that the defendant refuses treatment can they be sentenced to
jail or prison.

Research shows that drug offenders who are required to participate in
treatment do better than those who are not. When Arizona voters passed a
similar law in 1996, crime rates, drug use and prison admissions all
declined substantially. This led Judge Rudy Gerber of the Arizona Court of
Appeals to conclude, "As it turns out, the law is doing more to reduce drug
use and crime than any other state program -- and saving taxpayers dollars
at the same time."

Why is this addict population coveted by the prison guards union when the
prisons are so overcrowded? The answer goes beyond just the union's desire
for more prisons and increased staff. When the system is overcrowded, the
prisons must maintain a ratio of guards to inmates. To maintain this ratio,
the system either hires more guards or grants overtime. Overtime is the
highly favored option because it allows current line staff to double their
yearly salaries. It is not uncommon for California prison guards to earn
over $100,000 a year. Should the number of inmates drop below current
levels, extra income from overtime is lost and the argument for more
prisons loses merit.

The increased incarceration of California drug offenders cannot be
explained through any rational public policy analysis. Treating the
addictions of drug users is clearly more effective than simply
incarcerating them for a short time and sending them back to the street,
yet such sensible approaches meet with vigorous opposition from vested
interest groups.

Allowing public safety policies to be defined solely for the self-interest
of the politically powerful, compromises the interest of all Californians
and renders us all more vulnerable.

Macallair is vice president of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
and Justice Policy Institute and has been a correctional consultant for 15
years. Terry is a professor of criminal justice at the University of
Michigan at Flint. He is a former heroin addict and California prison inmate.