Pay to Stay

Something else to consider this upcoming election when you vote on three separate law and order initiatives. I’ve already explained to the best of my ability the reasons I oppose Propositions 6 and 9. I support Proposition 5, the attempt to improve the mechanizations of imprisonment when the convicted are non-violent drug addicts. Drug addiction is a mental disorder, nothing more or less. It’s better to help people overcome addiction so they can get out of the system and do something with their lives than to keep sending them back into the system. It’s cheaper than repeatedly imprisoning them and it’s obviously more humane. It also challenges a status quo which sees harsher penalties for possession of crack (minority) over powder cocaine (white) and the delusional society that airs commercials for alcohol dependency treatment in resort getaways during episodes of COPS where people strung out on Meth get tazered.

Photo by Monica Almeida, courtesy of the New York Times.

But it gets worse, as I’ve just learned after reading another cry from the dark. Prison Photography just blew my mind yet again. I had never heard of the “pay to stay” program where non-violent offenders can apply through the courts to, for a moderate daily fee, upgrade their prison experience to a kinder, gentler, whiter and safer one. The New York Times breaks this down in a succinct manner with a comparison price chart (circa 2007); more stunning is the City of Santa Ana official web page where prospective “clients” can learn more about skirting the system. You think the best way to deal with crime is longer sentences, more severe punishment, bring back the labor camps? You think that rehabilitative measures are too soft, we’re just letting murderers and rapist escape their just desserts? Really?

 

California Propositions 4, 6, 8, 9

Recently received an e-mail from my friend (and former Hesitating conspirator) Pete regarding a couple ballot measures up for consideration this November. It’s an issue that’s close to his heart as his interest in the justice system and incarceration provided the basis for his college degree as well as his excellent website Prison Photography.

Friends.

With this email I sadly admit that I have nothing better to do on a Friday night than read the editorial of the New York Times and worry about the state I used to call home. But I think it is worth it.

I just read this and I think you should too.

As, I can’t effect the outcome of California props 6 & 9 from Seattle, please read the article (it’s short) stick the issues at the front of your head for a brief period and give some thought as to whether you want more prisons and more punitive criminal justice systems in the finest state in the union. Basically, do you want to put California deeper in the hole for false promises of safety and an absent budget for the future education of your kids (if and when you choose to pop them out, and if there is a public school system left).

Thanks.

Pete

PS. California currently spends $10 billion/year on its prisons.

http://www.realcostofprisons.org/blog/

With the charged Presidential election monopolizing the media for the past several months it’s always important to remember that there are pressing issues at hand, ones which might have a more direct impact on your life than who sits in the Oval Office on any given day. After a quick peek through my Official Voter Information Guide I would have to concur with Pete that both Proposition 6 and 9 are ill-advised and subject to passion over logic.

Photo by Darcy Padilla

Proposition 6 is less flagrant in its attempts to manipulate the voters’ emotions, although the pet name proponents have given it, The Safe Neighborhoods Act, is a pretty clear indication you should be wary. The statute is spit into two aspects, one which addresses additional funding to all levels of enforcement, prosecution and incarceration. Almost one billion dollars per year, to be exact, with a caveat indicating that funding requirements for particular departments is subject to increase over time. The second aspect of the statute would make thirty revisions to California criminal law.

On the funding front there seems to be no concept that prisons are over-crowded and understaffed because of previous state initiatives and the continued reliance on prosecution over intervention or determent. All of this billion dollar package goes to one side of the law and is earmarked for reacting to crime, or what is defined as such. While I believe that prison over-crowding is an important issue which requires addressing I don’t think that the answer lies in throwing money into the wind and hoping it plugs the holes.