GLORIA PENNER (Host): State legislators can't seem to agree on a plan to cut costs
and reduce overcrowding in California prisons.
Last month a panel of federal judges ruled prisons were overcrowded
and ordered the inmate population be reduced by thousands.
We put San Diego State University criminal justice professor Alan Mobley on the record
about the court decision and lawmakers' reaction.
ALAN MOBLEY (Ph D., San Diego State University): The three judge panel of the federal court
who have looked at this issue have determined that the prison system is so overcrowded
that it constitutes an unconstitutional condition, where healthcare is substandard
where conditions are dangerous and where programs are able
to be delivered very effectively simply because of the overcrowding.
We've heard for years now the governor is saying
that the prison system is broken, and needs to be fixed.
Many members of the legislature are of the same view
that the prison system is broken and needs to be fixed.
What they have been able to cobble together in a bipartisan manner to try
to relieve the overcrowding is something that seems to me insufficient.
Politically, perhaps it's what can be done at the moment but as far as relieving the tension
on the prison system right now and reversing the long-term trend, it leaves much to be desired.
PENNER: Joining me now to talk about how your legislators in Sacramento are dealing
with reducing the prison population are Barbara Bry, copublisher and opinion editor for sdnn.com
and David Rolland, editor of San Diego City Beat.
Thanks for coming.
So David, what progress has the state legislature made in adhering
to the federal court order to lower the prison population?
DAVID ROLLAND (editor, City Beat):
Well one house of the legislature made more progress than the other.
On August 21st the state senate passed a bill that would reduce the prison population
by an estimated 27,000 inmates this year, and another 10,000 the following year.
This week, on August 31st, ten days later, the assembly passed a bill that was much watered
down and I believe the estimates are that it would result
in a reduced population of about 17,000.
Which is really just a fraction of the numbers that the federal panel of judges has required.
PENNER: So what's going on?
I don't understand this.
I mean the feds have said you've got to reduce the population and the assembly
at least seems really nervous about this.
BARBARA BRY (Opinion Editor, SDNN): Well, Gloria,
it seems to be politics as usual in Sacramento.
Most of the Democrats are on board to get the job done, a few Democrats, particularly those
in vulnerable seats are afraid to be seen as soft on crime,
and that seems to be a typical Republican rallying cry.
PENNER: Is it still an important issue in California,
whether you're hard on crime or soft on crime?
Years ago when George Mason was made governor.
ROLLAND: Throughout the 80's and in the 90's we had kind of a wave of really really really tough
on crime legislation, including the very high profile three strikes rule,
but also mandatory minimum sentences and for drug crimes and things like that,
they've really swelled the prison population to a point to where it's unsustainable,
where we either have to build a lot more prisonsto be able to manage the population,
or we have to be a little smarter with the way we sentence people
for maybe some non-violent crimes.
PENNER: How about the whole idea about being smarter, about being sure they don't go back?
Isn't recitivism a huge issue?
It's like a revolving door, they're in, they're out, they're in, they're out.
BRY: Right and we have a very high recitivism rate in California, and sometimes you go back
to prison in for little things like missing a meeting with your parole officer.
And I think what the public doesn't seem
to understand is the state would not be releasing violent offenders.
These would be people who have committed petty crimes, and they wouldn't just be released,
some of them would be under house arrest, some of them would be in halfway houses,
some of them would be in city jails,
they wouldn't just be thrown on the streets right away.
PENNER: Do you agree with Barbara that the public safety would not be at risk?
Under these circumstances.
ROLLAND: Yeah, it's hard to say that in such a blanket fashion.
Yes, I do agree with her, I mean you could say that you might be at risk
for more people writing bad checks, you might be at risk for people, you know,
a higher risk for people stealing your car, perhaps.
Actually I think that might be grand theft, and I mean we're really talking about petty theft,
or somebody receiving stolen property.
You know there are some politicians that believe they can make a lot of political hay,
they can take advantage of people being afraid, and they are certainly trying
to stoke fear of this legislation.
PENNER: It was interesting, in Sharon Heilbrunn's report
that fewer prisoners means fewer firefighters?
That for some reason Cal fires is really dependent on prisoners,
is this a red herring being thrown out let's say by the prison guards and the other unions
that are opposed seeing prisoners released?
BRY: You know what's interesting Gloria, this was the first time I'd ever heard about this,
and it's unclear whether the prisoners who would be released are those prisoners
who are particularly good at fighting fires.
And in a way, you can't have a long-term fire safety
or fire fighting plan that's based on using prisoners.
It seems the state has to do more than that.
PENNER: So until all this is sorted out, including the fact that the governer says
"I want that judge's order to be on hold, I want to take it to the Supreme Court,
until all this is sorted out will the prisons simply stay overcrowded?
ROLLAND: They certainly will because we don't even have a bill yet.
We're talking about two different bills in the state legislature, one from the Senate,
one from the Assembly, and you had Darrel Steinberg, who is the Democratic leader
in the Senate saying "I'm not sure I want to allow a vote on what this assembly will pass
because it just doesn't do enough."
Meanwhile, we don't know if the federal panel of judges will grant the stay
that Arnold Shwarzennegger has asked for.
PENNER: And whether the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear the whole thing.