Defending the prison cuts in the new California budget

Writing in the Sacremento Bee, Michael Vitiello has this new commentary, headlined "Prison budget cuts, done well, do no harm," praising the prison reforms in California's recently hammered out budget.  Here is how the commentary starts:

Watching California's recent budget negotiations could make grown-ups cry.  But one potentially healthy development is the proposal to reduce the prison budget by $1.2 billion.

Many scholars and nonpartisan observers have argued for several years that California's prison budget is bloated and that sensible policies could reduce expenditures without sacrificing public safety. Not everyone agrees. For example, when Republican Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee learned that the Democrats and the governor backed early prisoner release and creation of a sentencing commission, he accused the Democrats of "concocting a radioactive corrections bill that includes the worst of the worst – a sentencing commission and release of 27,000 prisoners." According to Blakeslee, "such policies would endanger the public and (are) unacceptable."

Attacks such as these may explain why many legislators have feared being accused of being soft on crime. Dating back at least to the Willie Horton ads during the 1988 presidential election, politicians have feared the "soft on crime" label. No matter how sensible a proposal, legislators wonder what will happen to their careers if a prisoner released on their watch commits a well-publicized crime.

So what are the realities about early prisoner release programs and sentencing commissions? While neither is a panacea, both offer realistic chances of reducing prison costs while maintaining public safety.

When Californians read about high recidivism rates for paroled prisoners, we can be forgiven for fearing early release programs. Our recidivism rates far exceed the national average. Elsewhere, prison and parole officials have developed far better systematic intervention programs, including better prisoner re-entry programs, which reduce recidivism rates. California is in an excellent position to benefit from similar programs.

California has an aging prison population, expensive to maintain and unlikely to re-offend upon release. Around the nation, far less "progressive" states have adopted early release programs for older prisoners based on a variety of actuarial factors and have avoided recidivism entirely in that population.

That is not surprising given a number of facts: Violent crime is a young man's game; by the time an offender reaches 30 years old, his violent conduct is on the decline. While that is not true for all offenders, data collection – like everywhere else in the computer age – has improved measurement of risk and protective factors, allowing accurate predictions about the probability of recidivism. Thus, a well-thought-out early release program could protect the public, while reducing prison costs.

Some recent related posts:

• Prison reforms and cuts left uncertain in final California budget deal
• Economic necessity finally forcing long-needed reform in California
• "State police chiefs' association backs prison plan in budget"
• "The Fiscal Crisis in Corrections: Rethinking Policies and Practices"
• Reviewing how tough times are resulting in prison releases