The Prison System and County Jails of California in Crisis - Research Paper Example

The Prison System and County Jails of California in Crisis The California prison system and county jails are a mess. The system suffers from inadequate health care and severe overcrowding, as well as deadly violence, lethal injection procedure, and a revolving-door parole system, all deemed as constitutional flaws by experts. In 2009, the Corrections department had a budget of about $8 billion for the operations at the 33 prisons in the state, which have a design capacity of about 100,000 inmates but currently hold more than 170,000. To make matters worse, expert forecast the population to grow to about 190,000 in the next three years (James 34). Due to the overcrowding, some of the prisoners have to bulk in the recreation rooms, hallways, gyms, and laundry areas, making the facilities to remain in a near-constant lockdown. Consequently, this raises the crime rates and tension within the facilities. According to an expert in the corrections department, the combination of idle and overcrowded inmates propagates an unsafe situation. In addition, the facilities face lawsuits concerning the provision of mental and medical health to the inmates, posing a possible population cap threat. The current prison and correction system is wanting. This paper seeks to analyze the system, examining the inmate gangs in the California prisons and jails and their political, social, and financial implications on the state. The paper also analyzes the recidivism rate and program in the state, and the three strikes and AB109 laws and their impacts. Lastly, the paper focuses on the parole and probation programs, and their functionality in the state. Inmate Gangs in the Prison and Jail System of California There are various definitions of prison gangs depending on the situation and criteria of classification. For the purposes of this paper, prison gangs refer to organizations that operate within the confines of prison system as criminally oriented entities that self-perpetuate, consisting of selected inmate groups with an organized and established chain of command and governed by a code of conduct. Such prison gangs have their own established goals in conducting gang activities through controlling the prison environment by directing violence and intimidation towards the non-members. In the corrections community, prison gangs are called Security Threats Groups. The issue of prison gangs is complex, as the current prison system adopts a sub-categorization system for these gangs where the most threatening and active gangs become the Security Threat Groups (STG), while system subjects the less serious gangs to a different low-level scrutiny (Gaes et al. 363). There are no existing standards, thus every state employs a different approach in labeling, identifying, and tracking prison gangs, utilizing the meaningful data they have to manage this challenging area. Despite the difference in definition, it is easy to understand the need to limit the inmate gang activity by the administrators of the corrections system. A prison facility cannot function properly without maintaining an effective control over the inmates. In essence, gangs are unauthorized inmate associations, thus they tend to compete for sources of authority within the facilities. Gang members, especially those with ranks, criticism, and praise, approval by peers, conflicts, rackets, and endless intrigues are the most significant reality in the prison facilities. Subordinates who shift their allegiance to pro-social goals and professional staff agitate the gang leaders. Therefore, there is some form of power shift from the administration to these gangs, thus the management of these facilities loses the power to achieve correctional and safety goals (Ruddell et al). In this regard therefore, prison gangs pursue their own goals as their power and superiority grows, making them credible sources of incentive and authority. This attracts other inmates to join them as well. There has been a clear link between prison gangs and the increased level of violence in prison facilities. According to a study done in 2001 on inmate gangs, gang members had a high possibility of committing violent crimes in prison than non-members. In addition, more violently predisposed inmates were more likely to join prison gangs. The study also showed that inmates with close affiliation to gangs had a higher rate of committing crimes that those without such gang affiliations (Ruddell et al). Furthermore, the study shows that there was an increase in drug dealing and drug use trends among gang members. Apart from the concerns of increased rates of crime in prison facilities, empirical evidence shows that prison gangs develop substantial power even outside the confines of the facilities, and that the gang leaders in prison oversee the criminal activities of released members. In summary, the presented evidence shows that prison gangs are a serious threat to both inmates and communities that gang members retaliate to after release. Prison gangs and violence is a real issue in California. According to a 2003 report by the California Department of Corrections, there were about 7170 reported incidents of inmate assaults, with approximately 1843-armed assaults and 14 fatal consequences. Calculating the average, this represents assault rate at 4.7 for every 100 inmates. Determining the exact number of members in a gang within the California system is quite difficult. According to a study about prison gangs, Gaes and group state that determining whether an inmate is a member of a gang or not is controversial and complex. The experts argue that the boundaries between nonmembers and members are less permeable in prison facilities than on the streets (Gaes et al. 360). However, another study shows that the police generated list of street gang members contains a few self-identified members, with more than half denying their affiliation with the gangs. This creates differences between what the authorities consider a prison gang member and the inmates understanding of the same, which results to difficulties in identifying inmates that characterizes true gang members. Available data on the California prison system bear this out. A report by the prison authorities show that there were about 1350 validated gang members in maximum security units in the state as of 2003. However, another commentator states that more than one-third of the inmates in California’s prison system (about 160,000 inmates) had gang affiliation and was under scrutiny for gang activities as of 2000. The latter cites a CDCR official. This huge difference in numbers perhaps results from the way of responding and tracking inmate interaction with gangs. Despite this difference, there is a well-established relationship between inmate gangs and inmate violence among those in the system. According to a California prison official, most of the violence in the facilities results from inmate gang members and associates. Similarly, the director of CDCR termed prison gangs as the most eminent problem in California system (Ruddell et al). It is from such consideration that the state of California has embarked on tackling the problem of prison gangs with special interest. The state has instituted a number of approaches to tackle the issue, including constructing new prison facilities with special design to isolate gang leaders and weaken their influence of the system. Despite these efforts, the problem of gang remains daunting (Gaes et al. 374). The CDCR seems determined to solve the problem, as evidenced by their latest Strategic Plan to design and implement a comprehensive gang management program based on evidence. Another evident characteristic is the temporal segregation of inmates in gangs. According to a study in 2003, majority of the prison gangs adapted a racial organization, resulting to inmate disorder and friction. Prison gangs tend to recruit members along ethnic and racial lines. As the gangs acquire more advantage and grow, rivalries between the gangs increases leading to increased violence in the facilities. According to Terry Thornton, there were about 803 gang members, more than 900 associates, 1050 dropouts, and 325 inactive members as of 2005 (Ruddell et al). Obviously, this number must be high by now. History of Inmate Gangs in California The Mexican Mafia (La EME) was the first gang to emerge in the California prison system, created in the Deuel Vocational Training Institution during the late 1950s. The members of the gang were strictly Latinos from the southern parts of California. The gang had ties with most of the street gang operations in those parts of the state. In November, officials at the toughest penitentiary in California, Pelican Bay State Prison, froze 16 bank accounts for inmates believed to launder money from prostitution, drug sales, and other crimes for the gang. The second was Nuestra Familia, a Latino gang created in Soledad Prison in the 1960s (Wallace). The main objective of the gang was to protect younger inmates from Northern California from the Mexican Mafia. Similar to La EME, Nuestra Familia had close alliances with street gangs and members of their home communities. Both gangs used written notes (“kites”) to pass information within and outside prison facilities to communicate with members and other associates outside the prison system. The two gangs engaged in dangerous rivalry for years, with many members lost their lives inside and outside prison facilities (Wallace). Another significant prison gang in California is the Black Guerilla Family founded in 1966 at the San Quentin Prison. Towards the 1990s, membership to the gang declined, but prison officials say that the gang is actively rebuilding its membership and recruiting members from other black street gangs like the Crips, the Blood, and the 415 Kumi Nation. There are also white gangs, the Aryan Brotherhood and the Nazi Low Riders, which is a spin-off of the Aryan Brotherhood. The Aryan Brotherhood emerged in 1967 at the San Quentin Prison, while the Nazi Low Riders emerged in the juvenile prisons during the 1970s. The two groups have had their fair share of ethnic mixes in state prisons (Wallace). Similar to the Latino and the African American gangs, the white gangs also have links to street crimes. From the above analysis, the inmate gangs are a serious threat to the financial, political, and social well-being of both inmates and communities where the gang members of retaliate after release. The fact that these organization occur under the confines of prison facilities and observation of prison authorities is scary. Moreover, experts and officials in the correction system in California state that these gangs are the cause of most of the violent incidents inside prison facilities. Therefore, prison gangs play an integral role in the current crisis in the prison and jail system of California (Wallace). Programs and Recidivism Rates The state of California has one of the highest recidivism rates in the United States. According to the 2006 – 2007 fiscal report, the recidivism rate had dropped to 65.1%, a 2.4% decline from the previous years. This meant that about 2,766 inmates released during that period went back to prison between the first three years of their parole. Experts argue that the reduction could save the taxpayers about $30 million. Despite this reduction, California still has a recidivism rate higher than the national average, which stands at 43.3%, by approximately 20%. This is according to a study carried out by Pew Center in 2011. San Francisco has about 78.3% recidivism rate, the highest in the state (James 34). Contrary to conventional belief, most offenders sent back to prison commit the same crimes after their release. According to a CDCR report, 45% or prison returnees violated parole such as defying some technical conditions or requirements, 7% engaged in property crimes, 7% in drug charges, 3% charges against persons, and 2% for other criminal offenses. According to the report, only 19% of the returnees committed new crimes. The report suggests that the mandatory parole policy by California, which lasts for three years, combined with the practice of long prison stay for parole violators are the primary causes of the high recidivism rates in the state (Barkan and Bryjak 173). Inmates with a history of solitary confinement (or Secure Housing Unit) have high rates of recidivism of about 69.8% than those who do not. Inmates often undergo solitary confinement if they assault other inmates or engage in gang activities within the facilities. In recent times, experts have come forth to testify that extended solitary confinements may result to long-term psychological damages. There have been several mass hunger strikes in California prisons protesting against solitary confinement conditions and policies. However, CDCR responded by telling the lawmakers of the state that it will proceed with reforms for gang validation and provide a stepping-down program to enable solitary confinement inmates to earn their way out of the confinement (Maxfield and Babbie 79). The report further shows that offenders with mental health problems are likely to return after the three years. The rate of recidivism among inmates with an IQ below 75 and other cognitive impairment was 77.7%, about 13% higher than in average inmates. Young inmates are also more likely to return to prison within the mandatory three years of parole. The CDCR report noted that the recidivism rate tends to decline with age. The rate or recidivism among inmates between 18 and 19 years was 75.7%, while the recidivism rate for older inmates was 62.8% between 45 and 48 years, 54.3% for ages between 55 and 59, and about 46.3% for the older inmates with 60years and above. In addition, sex offenders have a higher rate of recidivism than non-sex offenders do, but about 8 out of 10 sex offenders (84.4%) returned to prison with charges of committing sex crimes. Reentry and rehabilitation programs are the most viable tools for eliminating recidivism. According to research, vocational training, expanded drug treatment, education, transitional housing, and family visiting programs significantly reduce recidivism rates among inmates. The state of California offers various programs for released inmates, including the Enhanced Outpatient programs for inmates with mental health issues, Correctional Clinical Case Management System. Others include Substance Abuse Programs and the transitional housing programs, as well as the new “realignment” process that CDCR is seeking to employ to reduce recidivism. However, the state is slowly doing away with these programs (Barkan and Bryjak 186). According to an official, the state is cutting the programs that would actually transform inmates upon their release, making the situation worse. This is because of the strict conditions that the legislature is imposing on the correctional department funding, ultimately refusing to save money through policy reform. The Three Strikes Law The California three strikes law is a sentencing scheme that significantly increases the prison sentence duration for repeat offender charged with felonies. Statistics indicate that by June 2010, there were 8647 third strikers and 32,479 second strikers in the population of state prisons in California. The strike sentences result from any convicted felony, even nonviolent and wobbler’s offences, thus, strikers tend to serve lengthy and life sentences for convicted offences ranging from murder, kidnapping, possessing controlled substances, to receiving stole properties (Shause Law Group). The law was enacted voter and legislative initiatives in the 1990s, and amended in 2000 and 2006 to add crimes to the qualifying strike offenses. The primary intention of passing the law was to stop violent recidivism, but the evidence does not show even the slightest reduction in crime. The state passed the law with panic and anger following the tragic murders of an adolescent and a teenager by men with criminal records. In recent times, the law has proved to have flaws, including the fact that the three strikes result from any felony and not just serious and violent. In addition, the law may lead to disproportionate and absurd outcomes, with the possibility of a shoplifting offender serving a longer sentence than a convicted murderer does (Maxfield and Babbie 94). The scheme also exacerbates the already overpopulated prison system, as well as violates the eight amendment of the constitution. Furthermore, the scheme has no solid evidence of reducing crime, and does not leave room for redemption, hope, or rehabilitation. The three strikes law essentially stipulates a greater punishment and longer prison sentences for offenders with previous conviction of violent or serious felony offences. However, the Californian law targets also second and third strikers, and implements excessively punitive measures such as limiting the inmate’s ability to earn custody points and elimination of possibility of probation. Sentencing in the third strike cases is the most serious criminal offense in California. According to the three strikes law, a person convicted of any felony and has two or more previous qualified-strikes offenses face a sentencing of at least 25 years or life imprisonment in a state prison (Shause Law Group). For convicted offenders with a previous convicted felony, the sentence is double the prison term of the current conviction. Realignment AB 109 The current problems in the California prison system has led to many changes and reforms on the criminal legislations, including the realignment AB 109. In essence, the realignment AB 109 is a criminal justice law that seeks to amend the more than 500 felony statutes to provide jail sentences instead of prison sentences. The law also implements a form of felony sentencing referred to as “mandatory supervision” that works pretty much the same as felony probation. In addition, the law makes some important changes to the manner of supervision of certain offenders released from state prisons (Shause Law Group). Realignment AB 109 transfers supervision responsibility of state prison parolees and certain forms of felony offenders from the state parole agents and state prisons to probation officers and county jails. The realignment law became effective after the enactment of the California Assembly Bill 109. The legislation of realignment AB 109 resulted from a series of other laws, including AB 128, AB 117, and AB 116. The law was essentially in response to the backdrop of sever overcrowding in the state’s prison system, although the statute states that its enactment was primarily for combating recidivism. The sentencing scheme applies to all convicts sentenced on or after October 1, 2011. The law changes things in different ways (Shause Law Group). First, realignment AB 109 changes the definition of a felony in the California system. Previously, a felony crime in the California system referred to any punishable offense by the state prison. Currently, a felony includes offenses in the penal code section 1170 (h) that are punishable in county jails, though they are still felony crimes (Shause Law Group). Probation and Parole Programs Probation and parole programs are integral features in all criminal justice system. Parole refers to the release of prisoners prior to the completion of the sentence. Prisoners receive paroles if they adhere to the conditions of the parole. In normal circumstances, the authorities observe the prisoners while they still serve their sentences. However, released prisoners are prone to re-imprisonment if they violate one of eth conditions of parole. Nonetheless, not all prisoners are eligible to the parole programs. Parole programs are for indeterminately sentenced offenders serving from five to 15 years or 20 to life imprisonment (California Board of Correction). Offenders with determinate life sentences or life imprisonment do not qualify for parole programs. Granting parole to offenders is a delicate task that requires the expertise of qualified individuals. In California, the authorities form parole boards to decide if convicted offenders deserve parole. These bodies often consist of judges, criminologists, and psychiatrists. One of the most dominant parole organizations in California is the California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association formed in 1917. The organization boosts of being the largest and oldest state professional association for correction, providing the state with legislative, research, advocacy, professional development, information, and education. The state of California uses this organization to decide which offenders deserve parole and who do not (CPPCA). On the other hand, probation refers to the suspension of a jail sentence for an inmate. A court gives the probation status to an offender if the court perceives that the previous conviction needs changes. The court then sends the offender back to the community where they adhere to the conditions of the probation set by the court. These conditions may include avoiding unlawful behavior, remaining at work, avoiding contact with people, adhering to the orders of the probation officer, and residing in designated places stipulated by the court (California Board of Correction). Concerning avoiding people, the court may bar the offender from coming into contact with the victims, witnesses, or partners in crime. In California, the parole boards and probation officers observe a precise guideline system in determining the release of an inmate. However, the three strikes rule has been a major obstacle for offenders seeking enrollment in parole and probation programs. In some situations, the law denies offender the rights to probation and parole, resulting to overcrowding of the prison system with petty offenders (California Board of Correction). Different crimes have different classification in the guidelines. For instance, murder and aggravated murder are in category 13, meaning they are not eligible for parole. It is important to note that these guidelines are simply suggestions for the sentence duration (CPPCA). Offenders on probation are under probation officers, who essentially enforce the order and will of the court. In addition, they supervise and investigate the suspected criminals and others not sentenced to incarceration terms. Conclusion The prison system and the county jails of California are among the worst performing correction systems in the United States in terms of overcrowding, health services, recidivism rates, and harsh reconviction policies. The issue of overcrowding in the state jails has been so serious that courts had to intervene at one point. Current statistics show that the prisons and jails hold almost double their intended capacities. According to correction experts, the three strikes rule is among the underlying factors that contribute to this overcrowding. Prisons and jails in California also have the problem of prison gangs, which pose a serious threat to the operation and security of prison and jail facilities. These gangs are close alliances with street gangs, thus they also pose a threat to the outside communities. However, the state is focusing on reforming the corrections department, evident from the enactment of successful legislation such as the AB 109 and others (James 89). Despite the improvements, the state needs to focus on other reform programs other than pilling up offenders and sentencing them to extended periods in jail. Works Cited Barkan, Steven and Bryjak, George. Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2011. Print. California Board of Corrections. Jail profile survey 2004, 1st quarter results. Sacramento, CA: California Board of Corrections, 2004. Print. CPPCA. California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association. Web April 18, 2012. (http://www.cppca.org/) Gaes, Gerald et al. Influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. Prison Journal, 82, 359-385, 2002. Print. James, D.J. (2004). Profile of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Print. Maxfield, Michale and Babbie, Earl. Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Ruddell, Richards et al. Gang Intervention in Jails: A National Analysis, 9. Web, April 18, 2012. (http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Gang_Interventions_In_Jails__A_National_Analysis.pdf) Shause Law Group. Realignment AB 109 in California. Web, April 18, 2012. (http://www.shouselaw.com/realignment.html) Shause Law Group. The Three Strikes Law in California. Web, April 18, 2012. (http://www.shouselaw.com/three-strikes.html) Wallace, Bill. 5 Inmate Gangs Dominate California’s Prison System. Web April 18, 2012. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/24/MNGIBBG3971.DTL) Read More