TOO MANY CROOKS, NOT ENOUGH BUNKS

THERE are at least two things everyone can agree on when it comes to
California's prison population:

The prisons are severely overcrowded.

Taking the radical step of simply releasing 40,000 inmates means
40,000 more Californians on the streets and out of work. If it's
impossible for so many good folks with degrees and deep resumes to get
a job, how hard is it going to be for crooks?

The state's prisons have been stuffed too full of inmates for over two
decades. You don't have to be a softie to recognize that. But you also
aren't necessarily hard-hearted if you spend precious little time
worrying about the conditions in which the felonious among us bunk
down.

Still, while the 148,000 current inmates are fewer in number than the
165,000 of two years ago, every state prison has beds lining the halls
and filling the common areas. Even if that and the prisoners' long
waits for health care and other services don't strike you as
"inhumane" - especially in comparison to the violent crimes that
landed so many of the convicts in the clink - they add additional
chaos to an already chaotic system. That creates safety issues not
only for inmates, but for guards and administrators.

Because the state has delayed dealing with the issue for decades, it's
understandable that the United States Supreme Court has finally agreed
to take a look itself.

So when the state's lawyer on the issue claimed to the nation's
highest court that it was "extraordinarily premature" for a
California court to order a reduction in prisoners, it's no wonder
that prompted this query from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "How much
longer do we have to wait? Another 20 years?"

The lawsuits against the overcrowding did indeed begin in
1990.

California would have more money to build proper prison facilities if
its politicians hadn't given in to coercion and agreed to pay the
prison guards too much money and too many benefits over those same
last 20 years. It would also have fewer people crowding its prison
beds if nonviolent drug offenders were remanded to rehab or allowed to
make their own choices about drug use rather than being sent to the
Big House - a change in penal attitudes, especially in the case of
marijuana, that more and more Californians are in favor of.

The high court is unlikely to hand down its decision for several
months. But, from the line of questioning from a slim majority of
justices, the Supremes seems likely to agree with the ruling of the
lower court that California must provide a remedy for its
overcrowding. If that is the case, California's legal leaders need to
be prepared both to negotiate about the seemingly arbitrary "137
percent of capacity" that the lower court has mandated be reached, and
decide what kind of prisoners - the elderly? drug offenders?
white-collar criminals? - we'd most like to have back among the
general population.

It's either that or float a massive construction bond the state can't
currently afford and begin putting up more prisons.