Ruling Raises Stakes in California’s Fiscal Crisis
By JENNIFER MEDINA
LOS ANGELES — The Supreme Court’s order to California to ease overcrowding in the state’s prisons, by releasing tens of thousands of inmates if no other solution can be found, will probably aid Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to move more inmates from state prisons to county jails.
But it is also sure to set off a fresh round of budget battling in the financially distressed state as the governor and local officials insist on ensuring state financing before changing the system.
The ruling has also already inspired a fresh round of political recriminations, with some law-enforcement officials and Republicans echoing the Supreme Court’s dissenters by saying the release will result in more violence as released inmates, unable to find jobs, return to their former way of life.
“We’re bracing for the worst and hoping for the best,” said Mark Pazin, the Merced County sheriff and chairman of the state’s sheriffs’ association. “This potential tsunami of inmates being released would have such an impact on local communities. Each of those who would be released have really earned their pedigree as a criminal. It could create real havoc.”
And since the court requires that the state reduce the population one way or another, California’s residents were greeting the decision with a mix of nervousness and fatalism. That anxiety is unlikely to be eased by the news that some 200 prisoners took part in a fight on Sunday in the dining hall at San Quentin State Prison in which four men were stabbed or slashed. The cause of the melee was under investigation.
Matthew Cate, the secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, called the court ruling disappointing because it did not recognize improvements the state had made over the last several years. But Mr. Cate said state officials would push even harder for the Legislature to approve the governor’s plan, which he said would save money over time.
“Our goal is to not release inmates at all,” Mr. Cate said, adding that the governor’s plan would mostly address the overcrowding problem, although it would take three to four years to do so, longer than the two-year timeline laid out by the court. He said the state could apply for an extension and added, “I don’t think we can guarantee anything at this point.”
With the state facing a $10 billion deficit, Republicans have refused to sign on to the governor’s plan to ask voters to approve tax extensions. Under Mr. Brown’s proposal, some of that money would go to the counties, which would have responsibility for housing and rehabilitating the inmates.
According to Mr. Brown’s plan, no inmate convicted of violent, sex-related or otherwise serious crimes would be sent to the county jail systems. And while many counties have said that they can cope with the inmates, they say it would be impossible without extra money from the state.
“The only logical way to deal with the court order in a manner that continues to protect the public is to send some people to the counties,” said Paul McIntosh, the executive director of the California State Association of Counties. “A one-time release would be a terrible decision, and we need a fundamental change in the way we deal with criminals. The state really needs to step up quickly to give us the ability to deal with this.”
Lee Baca, the Los Angeles County sheriff, said the state, with the help of local officials, should immediately begin devising a plan, particularly to assure the public that hardened criminals would not soon be roaming the streets.
“The public does not want to see a violent predator slip through the cracks on this,” Sheriff Baca said. “We have to assure them that the department of corrections will not make a mistake on who gets released.”
Los Angeles County is expected to have some 11,000 prisoners come into its system under the plan. Sheriff Baca said he was confident that the county had programs to deal with the additional inmates and could do even more with programs to reduce recidivism.
“But you can’t just foist the problem on us without any more money,” he said.
Donald Specter, who argued for the prisoners before the Supreme Court, called the landmark ruling “fantastic” and said it would force the state to deal with problems it had long tried to avoid.
“The state has a lot of options,” Mr. Specter said. “It can reduce sentences for parole violations or change sentencing law or go along with the governor’s plan, but it has to do something.”
In Sacramento, Sheriff Scott Jones was less enthusiastic. He said the ruling could have “horrific consequences” in his jails, which are nearly filled to capacity each day.
“Whatever money they don’t give us, we have to make up with letting go a commensurate number of parolees or people who should be behind bars,” Sheriff Jones said. “There has to be a better way, but I don’t think we are going to get it here.”
But it is also sure to set off a fresh round of budget battling in the financially distressed state as the governor and local officials insist on ensuring state financing before changing the system.
The ruling has also already inspired a fresh round of political recriminations, with some law-enforcement officials and Republicans echoing the Supreme Court’s dissenters by saying the release will result in more violence as released inmates, unable to find jobs, return to their former way of life.
“We’re bracing for the worst and hoping for the best,” said Mark Pazin, the Merced County sheriff and chairman of the state’s sheriffs’ association. “This potential tsunami of inmates being released would have such an impact on local communities. Each of those who would be released have really earned their pedigree as a criminal. It could create real havoc.”
And since the court requires that the state reduce the population one way or another, California’s residents were greeting the decision with a mix of nervousness and fatalism. That anxiety is unlikely to be eased by the news that some 200 prisoners took part in a fight on Sunday in the dining hall at San Quentin State Prison in which four men were stabbed or slashed. The cause of the melee was under investigation.
Matthew Cate, the secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, called the court ruling disappointing because it did not recognize improvements the state had made over the last several years. But Mr. Cate said state officials would push even harder for the Legislature to approve the governor’s plan, which he said would save money over time.
“Our goal is to not release inmates at all,” Mr. Cate said, adding that the governor’s plan would mostly address the overcrowding problem, although it would take three to four years to do so, longer than the two-year timeline laid out by the court. He said the state could apply for an extension and added, “I don’t think we can guarantee anything at this point.”
With the state facing a $10 billion deficit, Republicans have refused to sign on to the governor’s plan to ask voters to approve tax extensions. Under Mr. Brown’s proposal, some of that money would go to the counties, which would have responsibility for housing and rehabilitating the inmates.
According to Mr. Brown’s plan, no inmate convicted of violent, sex-related or otherwise serious crimes would be sent to the county jail systems. And while many counties have said that they can cope with the inmates, they say it would be impossible without extra money from the state.
“The only logical way to deal with the court order in a manner that continues to protect the public is to send some people to the counties,” said Paul McIntosh, the executive director of the California State Association of Counties. “A one-time release would be a terrible decision, and we need a fundamental change in the way we deal with criminals. The state really needs to step up quickly to give us the ability to deal with this.”
Lee Baca, the Los Angeles County sheriff, said the state, with the help of local officials, should immediately begin devising a plan, particularly to assure the public that hardened criminals would not soon be roaming the streets.
“The public does not want to see a violent predator slip through the cracks on this,” Sheriff Baca said. “We have to assure them that the department of corrections will not make a mistake on who gets released.”
Los Angeles County is expected to have some 11,000 prisoners come into its system under the plan. Sheriff Baca said he was confident that the county had programs to deal with the additional inmates and could do even more with programs to reduce recidivism.
“But you can’t just foist the problem on us without any more money,” he said.
Donald Specter, who argued for the prisoners before the Supreme Court, called the landmark ruling “fantastic” and said it would force the state to deal with problems it had long tried to avoid.
“The state has a lot of options,” Mr. Specter said. “It can reduce sentences for parole violations or change sentencing law or go along with the governor’s plan, but it has to do something.”
In Sacramento, Sheriff Scott Jones was less enthusiastic. He said the ruling could have “horrific consequences” in his jails, which are nearly filled to capacity each day.
“Whatever money they don’t give us, we have to make up with letting go a commensurate number of parolees or people who should be behind bars,” Sheriff Jones said. “There has to be a better way, but I don’t think we are going to get it here.”
No comments:
Post a Comment