As I wrote yesterday, states from California to New York are mitigating effects of the crisis by closing prisons and experimenting with alternative corrections programs. Though the principal motivation – financial – implies that this is a patchwork remedy for a temporary ill, early signs of a shift in attitude predate the present crisis.
Some policies seemingly compelled by a temporary economic situation were, in fact, merely expedited, and the boost given them by fiscal necessity may prove a pivotal factor in their long-term institutionalization.
Michigan is one example. Its plan to close eight prisons this year continues a trend that began in 2005, with 11 prison and work-camp closings in the interim:
Where did all the work-camp inmates go? They’re on parole, part of a sea change in corrections philosophy. With 21,000 parolees, a record-high number, Michigan is four years into a reform centered on community supervision rather than incarceration. The state says it’s working.
Despite push-back from corrections officers, their unions, and state legislators – including a warning from a union leader that "the public better lock their doors" – the program is earning praise. It’s also contributing to the right sort of police statistics; crime is down, the recidivism rate is down, and it’s saving the state between $25 and $30 million a year.
Of course a spike in crime, whether real or media-contrived, can quickly reverse or halt this program. Tough economic conditions plus large numbers of parolees might prove the perfect recipe for such a spike.
Also arguing against the program’s staying power is the unhappy fact that Michigan’s economy has been in decline for quite some time, and the change in philosophy may find the whole of its explanation in ledger books, not in the hearts and minds of state legislators.
Nevertheless, there is reason to be optimistic. The program is working and, if the results still trend towards the positive, those who’d entrench or expand our prison industrial complex will have yet fewer grounds on which to make their argument. The politicians, for their part, will be happy to find new uses for the money saved.





14 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I think you might be interested in buying
the program is earning praise. It’s also contributing to the right sort of police statistics; crime is down, the recidivism rate is down, and it’s saving the state between $25 and $30 million a year.
oh sure – that’s what they *want* you to believe. One of the things that made this country great is that we’ve always locked one whole hell of a lot of people up.
btw, they’re not releasing *gasp* marijuana smokers, are they? May be time to break out my Costa Rica Real Estate brochures again….
Would the bridge be in Alaska perchance?
Meaningful prison reform is, sadly, far less certain than an eventual recovery from the economic crisis.
I wish Texas were reforming prisons in some way other than over-filling them beyond capacity.
The prison guards’ union is incredibly powerful here in California. I can’t imagine any reform that would pass muster with them, as they see any threat to the status quo as a threat to their jobs. Why we couldn’t retrain them to be probation officers, or agricultural guards of our largest cash crop, or private security guards for the Owners in the coming Hard Times, I will never understand. They want lots of people in prisons, and that seems to be the reason California keeps lots of people in prisons.
Is it a threat to jobs or a threat to expansion? One wonders if you could just stop expanding prisons as a first step…
Exactly
They’re a huge part of the California Prison Industrial Complex, along with “get tough on crime” legislators and of course the worst gov. south of Alaska and west of SC, Herr Gropenfuhrer
Can’t stick around but …
Up until now there was too much money involved. Everybody won. The CCPOA, the legislators and the govs (including Gray Davis). Prisons got built which meant jobs. And maintained – which meant more jobs. Most of which were built in rural areas. The legs got to look tough, plus they got jobs for their districts – the govs got to look tough, plus they let out the contracts to build the prisons – and the CCPOA got more jobs. California has a more stringent probation and parole system than even Tx. The prison hospital system is descrepit (sp?) Three Strikes was not very well thought out …
I could go on
The California Criminal Justice system needs serious reform
L8r
The Wall Street political gang (GOP) hates taxes but they always think up profitable programs for their pals that require taxes to support them . If that same money was put into teachers and schools there would be much less need to lock up people as long as the Wall Street political gang is not in control because they will refill the jails with more Democrats .
That seems to be the trend in most states. I’m not informed on the relative strength of guards’ unions in different states, but in every article I’ve come across on this topic it’s been the unions crying foul over the loss of jobs, making sensationalist claims to the effect of “everybody go out and get guns cause we’ll have mad dogs loose on the streets.” There comes a point, however, where legislators need to make choices. Economics is spurring the reform here but, as I wrote, there are signs that it’ll persist beyond the recovery. One of the most heartening signs is the comment made by Holder, linked in the post I reference in the first line. If this crisis, and its massive budget hole, aren’t enough to compel California into some substantial changes then I don’t know what it’ll take.
And john in sacramento, I’ve been looking into some investment opportunities and a bridge might be a wonderfell addition to my portfolio. Have your agent get in touch with mine…
Excellent post. I have always wondered why rightists and so-called centrists think that sending criminals off for years of intensive study at what amounts to a graduate school for criminals could conceivably lower crime rates.
To me, being tough on criminals means making sure that they don’t get to commit crimes. Criminals are bullies that like the perceived power they have over others. To fight crime, you have to deprive them of that sort of “power”, show them how pathetic it is, and make them behave like regular people in the community.
Properly funded, intensive community supervision at least has a plausible hope of achieving this sort of change.
Putting criminals in a giant, largely unsupervised crime ghetto and letting them practice drug dealing, fighting, raping, and murdering on each other for several years–while bulking up in a weight room–does not. It would be a joke if it weren’t so awful.
We should out-source the other end of the prison population to Afghanistan. Everybody admits Afghanistan is sorely in need of an industry to earn foreign exchange other than opium – this could be it. We should not impose upon Afghans our prison methods. There are a lot of advantages:
- instead of 30K/yr/prisoner, they can probably get by on 5K, maybe .5K.
- their open air prisons would allow the prisoners to commune with nature year round.
- life sentences would be shorter.
- they would “get right with God” – 5 times a day or else!
- they would have a chance to learn a new language.
- recidivism would definitely go down if this was the alternative.
- our prison guards could be employed in areas more productive to society.
;-)
Hope you didn’t think I was criticizing you. I was criticizing our “leadership” in this state
Here’s an old article but informative
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199812/prisons