1. Different levels of parole regulation and monitoring:
Between 60,000 and 70,000 California parolees (approximately 70%) return to custody annually for violations. They may have failed a drug test, gone missing, or even committed a new crime for which they were not prosecuted. They're sent back to a system that is so overcrowded and underserved that a federal judicial panel, describing conditions as "woefully and constitutionally inadequate”. Criminals' ‘cycling’ through California’s prisons should be reduced in number to solve overcrowding and fiscal issues.
First possible solution would be reducing parole regulation on less violent criminals, and allowing concentration of monitoring workforce on more serious offenders who should be watched more closely. There are too many parolees assigned to each parole officers, and if different level of parole regulation could be given according to parolees’ records and level of crimes they have committed, parole regulation would be more effective compared to the current system. All parolees would be subject to rules such as warrantless searches by the police, but parole officers would be concentrating on more serious criminals rather than technical violators.
* Estimated cost: unknown; but less workload for parole officers would result in more productive and efficient monitoring.
2. Discretionary parole and reducing the number of automatic parole:
Just releasing prisoners when time comes is not enough. Proper transition plan is needed to reduce recidivism and number of “parole absconders”
* Estimated cost: would require initial increase in budget for hearings and examinations for discretionary parole, but it would be undercut by the overall savings by reduction in the recidivism rate.
3. Proper transition programs and coordination with private social services groups:
If proper rehabilitation programs such as education and work programs are given to the prison inmates, there would be less problems of increase in recidivism rate or overcrowding prison population with second and third time violators. More than two-thirds of California’s prison admissions were from parole violators, and its recidivism rate is over 70 percent – among the highest in the nation. Most of those returned to prison are nonviolent, drug-addicted parole violators who receive no drug treatment while incarcerated. Failure of current parole system is partly due to lack of rehabilitation programs. The study has shown that when legislators think of prison rehabilitation programs, they prefer “generating some goods and services” by the inmates rather than providing proper education or work programs for them to be prepared for release.
However, without rehabilitation opportunity, inmates would never be prepared for parole or ultimate release as they would mostly fail to reintegrate into the mainstream society. On the other hand, it is true that the current fiscal crisis will be a great barrier for these goals to be achieved. Therefore, more active involvement of social service groups or private/nongovernmental organizations; and the systematic coordination between those groups and the criminal justice departments would be helpful to solve the issue.
* Estimated cost: overall savings by support from private social groups, and from the productive reintegration of parolees to the mainstream society.
I would support Proposal #1 because it focuses on the parolees who need the most supervision, rather than spreading a parole officer's attention too thin. This proposal also recognizes the need to monitor non-violent criminals without requiring the same degree of supervision. It won't cost California money because more parole officers won't be needed. In fact, it may save them money by allowing parole officers to focus on those persons most likely to re-offend.
ReplyDeleteI support all three proposals, but I am especially interested in Proposal #3. State coordination with private/nongovernmental organizations has the potential to greatly alleviate the burden on parole officers while providing parolees with additional services. Such a system has the added benefit of reducing the state's expenses because it could choose to work with organizations such as Delancey Street, which does not accept any government funding. This approach should at least be considered for parolees who did not commit serious crimes. By switching supervisory responsibility for low-level offenders to private/nongovernmental organizations, state parole officers will have additional time to more closely monitor parolees who need the most supervision.
ReplyDeleteI would support Proposal # 3 because I believe that better coordination with programs focusing on drug treatment, work placement and education will dramatically reduce the high recidivism rate that California is currently suffering from. I believe that the California prison system currently places too much emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Inmates are not rehabilitated and instead released from prison without the skill or support they need to integrate back into society. Although the state is in a fiscal crisis I believe that State coordination with private/nongovernmental organizations has the potential to be successful.
ReplyDeleteProposal 3 sounds like the most beneficial reform overall. The main question posed at a parole hearing is whether the prisoner is suitable for release. As such, this question will most likely be met with what the prisoner did while serving his or her time. Without the opportunity to develop one's self by way of educational, vocational, and theraputic programs, "suitability" seems out of reach to most prisoners given the atrocious prison conditions. Of course, the argument is that reallocating prison funds to rehabilitative services would be detrimental to an already "limited" budget. But because these opportunities for rehabilitation would come from sources and funding outside of the prison funding, Proposal 3 seems like a viable opportunity for reform.
ReplyDeleteIt seems ridiculous that automatic parole even exists. Parole should always be discretionary upon a review by a designated committee. While I understand that it helps reduce prison overcrowding, it would seem to work against the principles of parole.
ReplyDeleteAll 3 of the proposals are a step in the right direction. I support #3 the most, though I would favor a mix or combination of #s 2 and 3. For individuals who have been deemed "deviant" by society, there need to be mechanisms in place for socializing them back into normative society. Education and/or work programs are helpful. However, for #3 to work, there must also be a willingness among employers to hire parolees. Even if a parolees were properly trained and educated, employers might still be unwilling to hire them out of fear or because of the general social stigma that surrounds ex-criminals. I believe that factors into why many parolees return to crime: not for lack of ability to rehabilitate but because no one will take them even if they are rehabilitated. If those social barriers aren't broken somehow, then no amount of money poured into education and training will be sufficient to socialize parolees into society.
ReplyDeleteI also support #2; I question how many individuals are truly capable of rehabilitation and think that some discretion is necessary to prevent the wrong people from being released before they're ready.
I would like to support proposal 3, but because I feel that it's too broad and would be nearly impossible to implement, I support proposal 1. Nearly everyone agrees that there should be some more efforts into helping inmates readjust to society, but the big question is where is the money going to come from? No legislation is going to divert funds from keeping inmates locked up in order to setup some transition programs for inmates. This is due to the budget crisis and legislators not wanting to appear "soft on crime." That's why I think proposal 1 would be the most effective at this time. With limited resources, we should be using them towards the highest risk individuals instead of doing a half-assed job on all parolees.
ReplyDeleteEchoing others, I support all three, but think we should focus on #3. Ho is correct that it is too broad. However, I believe we could narrowly craft effectively programs to reintegrate prisoners into society. I am a firm believer that recidivism is directly linked to an inability to enter society post-release. Even if we find a way to completely and effectively monitor our ex-convicts, they are still prone to commit crimes again when they either have no sense of ownership or belonging in society. And why should ex-convicts change when they can't effectively rejoin society once they have paid for their offenses? It's a classic deadlock. Society doesn't want to accept ex-convicts until they can prove they are reformed, and ex-convicts can't show that they are reformed until society accepts them. I think society will have to make the first move in the right direction, and reimersion programs can do that.
ReplyDelete