In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Cut Prison Populations in California

Good good good.

Conditions in California’s overcrowded prisons are so bad that they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, ordering the state to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, described a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.”

Naturally, the more conservative justices dissented, saying that decreasing prisoner populations would put Californians in jeopardy. But huge numbers of prisoners are non-violent offenders, and they face disease and death living in squalid and cramped conditions:

The majority opinion included photographs of inmates crowded into open gymnasium-style rooms and what Justice Kennedy described as “telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets” used to house suicidal inmates. Suicide rates in the state’s prisons, Justice Kennedy wrote, have been 80 percent higher than the average for inmates nationwide. A lower court in the case said it was “an uncontested fact” that “an inmate in one of California’s prisons needlessly dies every six or seven days due to constitutional deficiencies.”


24 thoughts on Cut Prison Populations in California

  1. So in addition to being driven by profit, we are also driven by an overly-simplified idea that all we have to do is just build more prisons to solve a persistent social problem. But why, I ask, do people go to prison in the first place? Or, failing that, why do we have a culture of incarceration and why does race and economic status factor into it?

    But I guess we can just build another prison. But it damn well better be nowhere near me.

  2. Maybe they should start by getting rid of that completely stupid “3 strikes” rule, where 3 minor thefts or minor drug possessions land you in prison for life. Like what?! That literally benefits no one.

    Oh yeah, and legalize marijuana. That would be a good start.

    I’ll never understand why people would rather pay more to incarcerate someone and build even more prisons, than much pay less for crime prevention.

  3. Comrade Kevin: But why, I ask, do people go to prison in the first place?Or, failing that, why do we have a culture of incarceration and why does race and economic status factor into it?

    Sadly, and largely, I know the war on drugs is responsible. Very minor amounts of drugs tend to target socio-economically different racial groups than other crimes. By making small amounts of drugs a large crime we’re creating huge prison populations across the country that target already repressed groups.

  4. As a Californian, I am very relieved. Whatever greater danger may be posed by releasing criminals (one suspects they will be mostly non-violent drug offenders) pales in comparison to the shame of living in a state that is supposed to be a beacon of progressive values yet incarcerates people in such squalor.

  5. I’m a Californian, and I’m glad they’re doing this too. We really need to rethink how our prisons are handled, and what reasons are really appropriate for a prison sentence anyhow, especially life sentences. Three strikes sounded good when I was younger and didn’t understand the full impact, but now it’s ridiculous.

  6. Scalia’s dissent is just obscene. I really hate that man. Where’s your precious free market remedy now Antonin?

    This prison industrial complex is an obscenity. When I think of lives ruined it is just overwhelming.

  7. It’s actually a pretty complex issue. On the one hand, many of the people in there do not deserve the life sentences, based on the length of time they would have served for the crimes they committed if charged properly I’m sure in some cases it would have been house arrest or just community service.

    At the same time, they did BREAK the law, they knew the law and what the consequences are of doing so 3 times. I understand that some laws are unjust, but you know stealing is wrong and even though a life-sentence is way overboard for say stealing some clothing or food 3 times, it is the law. And before people freak out at me, this is California we are talking about and if you need clothing and food, you have other options, they might not be ideal but they do exist.

    That being said though, the conditions in the prisons are disgusting and inhumane. Something definitely needs to be done, and I do believe that the 3-strike law should be struck down, and the individuals charged under it released (if they served appropriate sentences for their crimes) because the law never should have been passed in the first place.

  8. awkwardsmile: And before people freak out at me, this is California we are talking about and if you need clothing and food, you have other options, they might not be ideal but they do exist.

    What the … what? Pick oranges, sleep on the beach, what are you talking about? Also, most of the people we’re talking about are drug offenders. The good old “war on drugs.” As morally repugnant and effective as any other war. And endless.

  9. Sorry awkwardsmile, you deserve to be freaked out at!

    Criminality is often about victimising angry poor men, bonus marks if they come from certain ethnic backgrounds (eg Arab, Vietnamese, Koori, Irish etc). And it is the men from disadvantaged backgrounds who get picked up for three thefts of grocery items – not white people from good neighbourhoods. They do bad stuff too, but they get a pass out – from the laws, from law enforcement, from society at large.

    The UK had a similar scheme to three strikes going about 200 years ago. They punished their poor and Irish by sending them out here, for 7 years to life – often for trivial offenses like stealing bread. Despite all the crims in our early history, I don’t think Australia turned out too bad.

  10. I’m a bit skeptical, if only because of what happened when Philadelphia tried something similar:

    “The prisoner release program carried out a few years earlier in Philadelphia is illustrative. In the early 1990’s, federal courts enforced a cap on the number of inmates in the Philadelphia prison system, and thousands of inmates were set free. Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes, that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries, and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses.”

    – from http://www.760kfmb.com/story/14706785/lets-release-46000-prisoners-what-could-do-wrong

    Now, I believe that current prison conditions are deplorable, that non-violent drug offenders (and sex workers!) shouldn’t be locked up, that many prisoners would benefit from treatment programs instead of jail, and that the system is especially cruel towards vulnerable populations like queer folks, the poor, POC, people with disabilities, etc.

    However. If the above figures are correct, if at least 90 RAPES occurred in less than 2 years after the project in Philadelphia – and I say at least because that is the number of arrests, not reports or actual incidents – I cannot get behind this for CA or elsewhere. There needs to be a better alternative, something that doesn’t unleash entirely preventable sexual violence upon the population. I cannot accept 90 rapes and 79 murders as the “price” to pay for reducing prison overcrowding.

  11. I’m a bit skeptical, if only because of what happened when Philadelphia tried something similar

    I’m more than a bit sceptical of a talk radio programme citing a very right-wing judge, and frankly I think so should you be.

    Of course released prisoners need support in order to reduce the recividism rate. There is no point in locking a person in jail for years then turning them out with no skills to make a living but what put them in jail in the first place. But I strongly doubt crime statistics cited by a right-wing judge trying to prove that people in jail are bad people who should be kept in jail forever.

  12. A vicious and brutal prison system results in… wait for it!… more viciousness and brutality! A lot of people who wind up doing time for minor offenses come out totally changed. And they only turn to more crime – because it’s not as if job opportunities for them are plentiful. In many cases – worse crime. Everyone loses.

    It *is* much possible that cutting down on overcrowding could result in a surge of crime – I mean, I can see it happening, if only because solving overcrowding problems is just one part of the huge puzzle here. Someone’s who’s been on the inside for a couple of years may not have started as a violent criminal at all, and THEN they were exposed to the joys of the system. How will this person act once free? I don’t know. But neither can this situation just go on – and building more prisons will not solve the long-term issues with the system either. Perhaps California can really do better? I can dare believe it.

  13. I am also skeptical of the numbers of crimes supposedly committed by prisoners released by the program in Philadelphia.

    No other country imprisons as many people as the US, and we are not experiencing huge crime waves.

    The only thing I would be concerned about it over-taxing the already meagre support services for released prisoners.

  14. “Someone’s who’s been on the inside for a couple of years may not have started as a violent criminal at all, and THEN they were exposed to the joys of the system. How will this person act once free? I don’t know.”

    A) It sounds a lot like you are blaming the prison system for rapes rather than the rapists. But nothing makes a man rape; it is a conscious decision to do so.

    B) When rape and murder are involved, “I don’t know” isn’t all that comforting to me.

    Listen, the “crime surge,” when phrased like that, doesn’t particularly scare me. But I can’t abide anything that will result in rape and murder, and probably domestic violence, even if it’s only a handful of victims…and the numbers suggest it will be more than that.

    Also, once again, I’m opposed to many aspects of the prison system, and applaud the activists working to change it…but this will be gradual, and we can’t consider sexual violence an acceptable risk in the meantime.

  15. “Naturally, the more conservative justices dissented, saying that decreasing prisoner populations would put Californians in jeopardy.”

    This is a really stupid and short-sighted view, because as Natalia points out:

    Natalia Antonova: A vicious and brutal prison system results in… wait for it!… more viciousness and brutality! A lot of people who wind up doing time for minor offenses come out totally changed. And they only turn to more crime – because it’s not as if job opportunities for them are plentiful. In many cases – worse crime. Everyone loses.

    The prison system is a school for crime. Prison gang organizations run street gangs in California. The attempt at ethnic cleanising in LA a few years ago, where Mexican gangs tried to run black families out of neigborhoods, was run by a prison gang organization. It was probably la Eme, because they’d be the obvious ones, but I don’t remember if that piece of information was ever relased.

  16. Two things:

    1) Why do you consider sexual violence against inmates (who are largely poor men and men of colour), as well as extremely high rates of suicide to be an acceptable risk?

    2) Whenever someone with a history of violent crime is released from prison, there is a risk that they will reoffend. Is the solution to lock people up forever?

  17. debbie: 2) Whenever someone with a history of violent crime is released from prison, there is a risk that they will reoffend. Is the solution to lock people up forever?

    Clearly these people are not thinking that far.

    As for sexual assault against inmates, look at any comment section afteran article on some crime in any newspaper – you’ll fin all sorts of people cheering for sexual assault on prisoners. Utterly disgusting. And they don’t differentiate among men of any origin – they howl for rape regardless of who it is.

  18. Debbie –

    1. I don’t. Prison rape is atrocious and I believe there are orgs working to stop it. The system needs reform. All rape is awful and unacceptable. But the solution is not to release violent criminals.

    2. Rape and murder, absolutely. But perhaps in mental health facilities rather than prisons depending on the situation. Non violent crimes, no.

    Here in LA we had the Lily Burke case…a seventeen year old girl was murdered by a released inmate with a history of violent crime. I’d prefer he had stayed in prison. I suppose her family would too.

  19. What happened to Lily Burke is very sad, but it does not constitute an argument for locking people up for the rest of their lives. I think it’s an extremely transparent attempt to avoid a serious discussion of the problems of the criminal justice system.

    I don’t think it’s acceptable to lock people up forever for anything but the most horrible crimes (serial killers, etc.), and I believe that is the norm in most industrialized countries outside of the United States. I find your criminal justice system to be outrageously punitive, particularly given the conditions of many American prisons. The problem with sending people to jail, is that most of them get out

    While many prisoners are mentally ill, most people who commit violent crimes are not, and putting them in mental health facilities is not an appropriate solution. Those who are mentally ill deserve proper treatment, which they are unlikely to ever receive in prison, or psychiatric facilities for that matter. Psychiatric facilities can also be extremely punitive, especially for prisoners. The conflation of violence with mental illness is also really not ok.

    I think your comments are an excellent example of the intersectionality fails that characterize many feminist discussions of criminal justice systems. You agree that prison rape is bad, but there are organizations addressing it – i.e., it’s not really a feminist issue. Sexual violence is only a problem when it is happening to women. The murder of Lily Burke is terrible, whereas the extremely high rates of suicide amongst California’s inmates is not as bad.

  20. Yes, psychiatric hospitals need to be reformed as well, big time – I happen to have a mental disability (PTSD, from rape) and have been involuntarily institutionalized, so I know the elements of coercion and lack of bodily autonomy involved. This is a big and complicated fight. Of *course* these are feminist issues – I never said otherwise.

    Sex work and marijuana should not be criminalized whatsoever (among other “crimes”) and that ALONE would reduce crowding significantly, without letting sexual predators out. Of course, such things are a long way off, but in the meantime those are the inmates we can afford to release without essentially facilitating an increase in rapes and murders.

    Rapists, murderers, and child abusers should be isolated from society, full stop. It is possible to do this AND work for humane prison conditions which include a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault. Both/and not either/or.

  21. Yes, psychiatric hospitals need to be reformed as well, big time – I happen to have a mental disability (PTSD, from rape) and have been involuntarily institutionalized, so I know the elements of coercion and lack of bodily autonomy involved. This is a big and complicated fight. Of *course* these are feminist issues – I never said otherwise.

    Sex work and marijuana should not be criminalized whatsoever (among other “crimes”) and that ALONE would reduce crowding significantly, without letting sexual predators out. Of course, such things are a long way off, but in the meantime those are the inmates we can afford to release without essentially facilitating an increase in rapes and murders.

    Rapists, murderers, and child abusers should be isolated from society, full stop. It is possible to do this AND work for humane prison conditions which include a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault. Both/and not either/or.

  22. A) It sounds a lot like you are blaming the prison system for rapes rather than the rapists. But nothing makes a man rape; it is a conscious decision to do so.

    It’s not only rape that’s a problem – there are different hierarchies enforced with different methods, quite a lot of them horrible and violent, and people who get stuck dealing with them for years – a lot of them *do* change and are then unable to cope on the outside. And the outside, it is important to note, does not *want* them to cope. Putting your life back on track after a prison sentence? Most people are actively prevented from doing it by society. Note that I’m *not* talking about someone who went in for a violent crime – I’m talking about the people who’ll go in for something relatively petty, and then that’s it, they don’t get their lives back. Does this somehow free them from responsibility for their actions down the road? It doesn’t – neither morally nor legally. But what it should do is raise serious questions about whether or not society benefits from the current system.

    B) When rape and murder are involved, “I don’t know” isn’t all that comforting to me.

    I agree – it’s not comforting. Not my intention to comfort myself or anyone else here, really. Things have gotten way out of hand with the way the current system operates – we can’t accurately say that we can forsee the full extent of the consequences. But with some experience to go on here – the state of California could deal with this better. It really looks like the legislators will have no other choice.

Comments are currently closed.