A Fundamental Disconnect

I usually avoid weighing-in on issues pertaining to conditions of confinement in the nation's prisons.  While those who study reentry rightfully make the case for the importance of reentry planning while an inmate remains inside prison, reentry issues must not be conflated with issues pertaining to conditions of confinement, or sentencing reform--which happens far too often.  In conflating these related but distinct issues, we do not adequately focus upon the ongoing, real time, struggles of the hundreds of thousands of persons struggling in their reentry experience on any given day in this country.  The California prison crowding case currently before the United States Supreme Court, however--and the political posturing related to it--presents an opportunity to highlight a very important variable in our nation's continuing failure to properly process the nexus between reentry and recidivism.

In the case at issue--which you can read about here--California has appealed a lower court order to reduce the number of prisoners in it's woefully overcrowded prison system by 44,000 inmates, over two years.  The union representing California's prison guards, perhaps surprising to some observers, agrees with the prisoners--and the lower court--that overcrowding in the nation's most overcrowded prison system has resulted in an unconstitutional denial of adequate medical care for California's prisoners.  The case will most likely turn on the Court's interpretation of the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, regarding whether or not the courts have the authority to intervene in the state's operation of its prison system.  Not surprisingly, 18 states have filed briefs supporting California's challenge to the court order.  Power concedes nothing without a struggle.

Opponents of the prisoner release order have reached for the panic button, claiming that the forced release of such a large number of prisoners would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety.  To buttress this claim, those opponents cite California's 70 percent recidivism rate.  In merely citing the rightfully alarming recidivism rate in this way, however, opponents of the release order perpetuate a fundamental disconnect in societal thinking concerning reentry and recidivism.  To wit: unacceptably high recidivism rates are not merely the consequence of the incorrigible criminal-mindedness of released prisoners.  Unacceptably high recidivism rates result, moreso, from the systemic exclusion of persons with criminal backgrounds from legitimate opportunities to work, have careers, adequately support themselves and their families, and pay taxes, like everyone else.

Opponents of the prisoner release order propose to release fewer prisoners, and build more prisons.  I submit that Californians would do better to take the money it might use to build more prisons and invest it in incentives for businesses who provide work opportunities--at a living wage--for those released prisoners.  Such an approach would change the failed reentry paradigm that remains one of the most pressing, yet solvable, public policy issues in our country.

Related articles

• Supreme Court Reviews Order to Free California Prisoners (reason.com)
• The Supreme Court Tackles California's Prisons Crisis (politicsdaily.com)
• Justices debate solutions to California state prison overcrowding (cnn.com)
• California Prison Overcrowding: US Supreme Court To Consider California Prison Overcrowding (alternet.org)
• Prison Ruling Stirs Up California (online.wsj.com)
• Keeping America's Prisons Overcrowded (theroot.com)
• Overcrowding at the Court: Justices Consider California Case (criminaljustice.change.org)
• Supreme Court considers Calif prison crowding (sfgate.com)
• Supreme Court considers Calif prison crowding (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• High court spars over California prison woes - San Jose Mercury News (news.google.com)