Criminal
Jul. 27, 2002
All Rehabilitated Inmates Should Get Early Release
Forum Column - By Pablo Agrio - With California's red ink grown to $17.5 billion, legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill recently made some suggestions for balancing the budget. Predictably, when it came to cutting prison spending, she suggested that the state release "nonviolent" inmates between one and 12 months before the end of their sentences.
By Pablo Agrio
With California's red ink grown to $17.5 billion, legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill recently made some suggestions for balancing the budget. Predictably, when it came to cutting prison spending, she suggested that the state release "nonviolent" inmates between one and 12 months before the end of their sentences.
For a long time now, releasing nonviolent inmates appears to be the politically correct thing to suggest and to actually do, if necessary. Never mind that the whole concept should raise red flags in the minds of dwellers in the inner city, where many of these inmates come from.
Let me explain.
You see, no sooner are these so called nonviolent offenders released back into the community, than they return to their primary means of income: criminal activity. Statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are the highest recidivists in the system. The California Department of Corrections statistics for May 2002 show that these offenders have a 54.5 percent recidivism rate.
It stands to reason that the early release of these offenders will only result in an increase in crime in poor communities. Before long, many of these people will be back behind bars. Could somebody explain to me how this practice results in savings to the state?
Now, on the other hand, we have the so-called "violent" offenders, who are never mentioned in any cost-cutting operation. Again, statistics prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that 99 percent of these offenders, when paroled, return to their communities to live exemplary lives. Department of Corrections statistics for 2000 show that "lifers" have a .08 percent rate of recidivism.
And there is a reason for this. Despite what the term itself implies to the gullible and ignorant, I have found - in my 10 years of incarceration and as a jailhouse lawyer assisting lifers with their cases - that violent offenders are, for the most part, inmates who were living productive lives but who, because of unusual circumstances, found themselves involved in a situation that resulted in tragedy. They generally do not have criminal minds.
These inmates are educated and trained in a chosen vocation, if not before their incarceration, then certainly as a result of requirements by the Board of Prison Terms that they become qualified to earn a living outside of prison. Because of the lengthy sentences that they receive and the established requirements for parole, these inmates have worked hard to rehabilitate themselves. They are more mature and less apt to re-offend on release.
Nonviolent offenders, on the other hand, come to prison for a vacation. These are the drug addicts, the drug peddlers, the petty thieves, the burglars, the illegal aliens, the homeless, the mentally unstable and the parole violators.
These people are short-timers who sit around playing cards and dominoes, dreaming of the next opportunity to take advantage of person or property. The system places no demands on them. They don't have to convince anyone that they are "suitable" for parole. All they have to do is time. That's it.
The problem here is with the labels being used. Politicians and the media find it convenient to divide the inmate population into violent and nonviolent offenders. They have further managed to convince the population at large, through their well-managed propaganda machines, that nonviolent offenders ought not to be feared. Nonviolent sounds, well, less dangerous. Never mind that the evidence is that these are in fact the real predators of our society.
But how about if, when it comes time to implement early release as a cost-cutting measure, we think about "rehabilitated" inmates, as opposed to just nonviolent offenders? That doesn't sound too bad, does it?
By applying a different label, we bring into the equation all inmates who are deserving of early release, regardless of the commitment offense - not just inmates who are sure to commit more crimes.
This is the just and safe thing to do. The beauty of this idea is that it would cost nothing to implement. Indeed, it can save the state untold costs. Since it costs the state $26,894 to house each inmate per year (Department of Corrections Statistics, May 2002), it would be far easier and more cost-effective to do this than to continue the policy of fear and misinformation.
One term-to-lifer can cost the state as much as $753,032 if he or she serves the average 18 years served of a 15-to-life sentence. However, if that term-to-lifer is paroled, he or she will cost the state only $2,743 per year until parole is terminated (Department of Corrections Statistics, May 2002).
There are presently 24,739 lifers with the possibility of parole being incarcerated (Department of Corrections Statistics, May 2002). If they were all paroled, the savings would be enormous.
As noted, the return rate for the so-called nonviolent offenders is 54.5 percent. These are the inmates who should not be paroled until they can prove they are no longer a threat to society.
Pablo Agrio is a law-school graduate who is serving a life term in a California state prison.
Columnist
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com