Alleviating the Prison System

          While the legalization and decriminalization of drugs will always be a debatable topic, the term “drug” is a broad topic in of itself, with both legal and currently illegal drug types falling into multiple categories and classifications. What should be legal and illegal, the problems associated with both, personal use and in society as a whole are always going to be at the forefront of debates as well. Heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines are illegal because they are dangerous, addictive and destructive drugs. Marijuana, while some can argue that it is addictive, it is not dangerous and destructive like the previously mentioned drugs. Marijuana has some medical use, but if legalized as a recreational drug, could aid in the suffering American economy, specifically in California, and a decline in violence associated with drug trade.

          For decades there has been an ongoing war on drugs, both at home in the United States and Mexico where drug violence and mayhem is at an all time high. This war has associated problems that we once saw when the United States declared Alcohol illegal under the Volstead Act, otherwise known as Prohibition. The problems such as violence, organized crime, corruption, and disrespect for law enforcement, are at an all time high both on American streets and through Mexico. Drugs such as heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine should remain illegal, however marijuana should be legalized, not only decriminalized. Decriminalization, which has made laws in certain states more lenient towards possession of small amounts of marijuana, is certainly a start towards legalization, which would take the marijuana trade and money away from Mexican cartels and put it back into the American economy and end the violence associated with it.

          If we fully decriminalized marijuana and rule it legal, we could treat it’s sale and transportation much the same as we currently do with alcohol by means of detailed regulation such as taxes and age restrictions. The legalization would likely result in a fall of current drug prices, which is due to the limited access of marijuana and compensation dealers want because of the risks associated with cultivation, sale and transportation. The lowering of the prices could be offset by taxation, which could be pumped back into the economy. By pumping the marijuana tax dollars back into the economy, it would aid cities and states in correcting the deficits they face. For example, the city of Oakland, California in 2009 faced a $31 million dollar deficit and saw 17 percent unemployment rate. Oakland approved four large-scale marijuana plantations that could produce as much as 70,000 pounds of marijuana each year, which would go directly into licensed dispensaries. These dispensaries, moving that amount of marijuana, which is likely, based on the number of supporters of the legalization, could bring in an estimated $38 million dollars a year in fees and taxes.

          Legalization could also aid in alleviating our current prison system overcrowding problem that we face because of senseless laws that locked up pot offenders. While it is job security for some, too much time and focus is being put into our drug wars on marijuana by law enforcement, instead of focusing on harder, more destructive drugs as well as other problems that society faces such as rape, robbery, and murder.Marijuana legalization is gaining widening support in most societies today, as we recently saw in the elections last week with Proposition 19 making it onto the California ballot. It is a slow process, that I believe we will see become a legal recreational drug in our lifetime. Alcohol is one of the largest industries in the world and kills more people as a direct or indirect result than marijuana ever has, yet marijuana is still illegal regardless of the positive effects it could have on the economy as a whole such as alleviating money deficits, lowering associated violence and allowing law enforcement to focus on worse problems we face.

References

Bretteville-Jensen, Anne Line. 2006. To Legalize or Not To Legalize? Economic Approaches to the Decriminalization of Drugs. Substance Use & Misuse, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p. 555-565

Husak, Douglas; Sher, George; de Marneffe, Peter. 2003. Drug Legalization. Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 21-49

Sullum, Jacob. America on Drugs. Prohibition Didn’t Work Then; It Isn’t Working Now. Drugs, Society, and Behavior. Article 43, p. 168

Mexican Gangs Calling the Shots From Behind Thick Walls.

          The Nuestra Family and La eme, also known as the Mexican Mafia are two of the largest Mexican gangs in California prisons. They have the strength and power to deal and traffic drugs on the outside from behind prison walls, shot call murders and beatings as well as a number of other violent actions from the inside of the California prison system. These gangs have total control of California prisons and because of their main drug trade, they have aided in the over crowdedness of the prison system. Overcrowding, one of the largest problems the criminal justice system faces currently is due in part to petty crimes such as possession, sale and trafficking of marijuana. A free flowing drug that the cartels have a firm hold on and can easily move it into the United States. The higher up in command within these gangs and cartels, are called shot callers. They sit behind the prison walls and give orders to “foot soldiers” on the outside to move and conduct business until caught. The foot soldiers, conduct more than just drug sales and trafficking. They are heavily involved in human trafficking, murders, extortion and torture. All of their actions are called from behind the walls.

          The Mexican shot callers, or leaders, are calling their shots by using “kites.” Small pieces of paper rolled up very tightly. These kites contain various codes that can be translated into objects and letters by members on the outside. The office of the United States Attorney General, Southern District of California states, “The Mexican Mafia, a racketeering organization is involved in a wide range of criminal activities including but not limited to: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, violent threats, importation and distribution of controlled substances, laundering and robbery.” (2009) Also acknowledged was the manner in which the Mexican Mafia is able to exert control over illegal activities, both within the prison system and on the streets through various, smaller Hispanic street gangs. (justice.gov). The amount of control they have in society and events called on from behind prison walls is absurd. They are creating a more violent atmosphere on both the Arizona and California borders, as well as in the streets where normal, innocent people reside, often times bringing innocent people into their mayhem.

          Correctional Administrations and Officers need to step up and take control of the criminal justice system instead of letting the gangs run the prisons. These leaders need to be completely cut off from outside communications in order for the violence and illegal activities to stop. If Arizona is able to enact a law that specifically profiles people of Hispanic ethnicity, then revoking what civil rights they have should not be a problem and needs to take place. Outside communication needs to be completely cut off aside from heavily monitored, written letters and incoming mail only from known family members. This could prevent outsiders from sending narcotics and notes inside. While family members may try to get stuff through mail security, it would be more difficult if institutions stepped up and screen and processing procedures. By eliminating communication and heavily monitoring their actions, we could drastically cut out the problems previously mentioned such as overcrowding and violence in the streets. The gangs are willing to do what it takes to commit these acts, regardless of the cost but there is only so much they can do if our institutions take a stand for firmer action and enforcement.

References

United States Attorney Karen P. Hewitt
http:www.justice.gov/usao/cas/press/cas90116-Leon.pdf

Valdez, Avelardo. (2005). Mexican American Youth and Adult Prison Gangs in a Changing Heroin Market. Journal of Drug Issues (4), p.843-867. Retrieved November 9, 2010.

AB505 AND CDCR

          California Assembly Bill 505 introduced by Assembly Member Warren Furutani will redefine the definitions of Jessica’s Law. AB 505 limits housing options for paroled sex offenders living in multi-family households as well as hotel and motel rooms that are also occupied by registered sex offenders, unless related by blood, marriage or adoption and also limits California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s placement of registered sex offenders in hotel/motel rooms to no more than 10% available at the establishment. The California State Assembly should not pass this bill because of
the fiscal effect it could have, as well as current local and state laws that are already enacted.

          If Assembly Bill 505 is passed, it could increase costs the state incurs by requiring CDCR to locate alternative housing for paroled registered sex offenders so they are not living together in large amounts. It is argued that sex offenders are often living in poor communities, where moderately priced hotels and motels meet the housing restrictions, however the complaints that when this “clustering” (Furutani) happens, the sex offenders often times can be found loitering around the premises of the hotels and outside of their dwellings. This raises the question of safety of neighboring communities.

          By passing this bill, it could cost roughly $200,000 more a year for CDCR to locate different housing for sex offenders so they are not grouped together sharing the hotel/motel complex. By capping the maximum allowed at no more than 10% per hotel, it would make finding housing for these offenders, even more difficult, which would require even more money for extra administrative costs and placements in hotels that are more expensive then the required minimum legal restrictions where they are currently
placed. Also, by moving offenders out of poorer communities where most of these hotels/motels meet the minimum “standard,” we would be moving them into middle class communities where more often than not, there are more children present and people of the communities have expressed heavily that registered sex offenders are not welcome.

          Currently, existing state and local laws already cover some of the issues addressed in AB 505 and are functioning examples. Penal Code 3003.5(a) states that paroled, registered sex offenders may not, during the period of their parole reside in a single family dwelling with any other person registered as a sex offender, unless like previous stated, they are related by blood, marriage or adoption. PC 3003.5(b), also known as Jessica’s Law, states that any person required to register as a sex offender, is prohibited
from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park.  Finally, PC 3003.5(c) states that nothing shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from further restricting the residency of any registered sex offender. Previously passed Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law) also allows local governments to expand their restrictions to protect their communities, with the addition of day care centers, bus stops and other areas where children might be present daily.

         Other implications of enacting this bill would be the monitoring of hotels and the measuring of the occupancy by parole agents. Offenders could check into the hotels by themselves and exceed this proposed cap, or the coordination of parole agents placing their parolees in these areas without prior knowledge of other agents placements. The passage of this bill should be denied, as it would cost the state extra money for CDCR staffing for the assistance of placing registered sex offenders in different areas where this proposed 10% cap is not at its maximum occupancy, as well as placing them into other communities where they are not welcome. Furthermore, the rest of the proposed issues to redefine Jessica’s Law, are already in place and covered entirely by Penal Code 3003.5 (a,b,c).

References

Labahn, D. (12008). Protection from Predators. Daily Journal.
http://www.dailyjournal.com/cle.cfm?show=CLEDisplayArticle&qVersionID=19
6&eid=885656&evid=1

Furutini, M. (2010). AB 505 Assembly Bill.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_05010550/ab_505_cfa_20100111_194050_asm_comm.html

Reinstating the Auburn Correctional System

            Today’s correctional facilities can be seen as being run for the most part, by the prisoners themselves. Historically, correctional institutions have gone through various forms of punishment and rehabilitation and through different lawsuits and other protests we have reformed the so-called ‘punishment’ system we currently see today in an effort for more humane treatment. However, today’s prison populations are at the highest we’ve ever seen and with less punishment than ever. The correctional institutions could become once again a place where no one wants to be if we reinstated the Auburn System, which had strict regulation and regimentation on a daily basis.

            The issue today is that the prisoners run today’s prisons. Gangs, regardless of race, all have an equal share of how the prison is run. Wardens and Correctional Officers have let the correctional system become this in an effort to maintain peace within the walls, instead of punishing those who violate and commit crimes in society.

The solution could simply be bringing back one of the first punishment systems; The Auburn System. The Auburn System was an excellent penal method as it deterred people from committing crimes, while also deterring released prisoners from committing again. Today’s society is too lenient with the prison system. The costs are astronomical for what we spend on someone who has committed crimes in society, and prisoners have better health benefits and eat better than some of the population in this country. Because of the ‘benefits’ as some see it, of being in prison, there is a likely high recidivism rate because they are aware of the consequences and often at times prefer it.

            The Auburn System was not harsh or inhumane. It’s how prisons should operate today. Prisoners should not have rights or the opportunity to live a comfortable life in prison with television, sometimes telephones, books, other ways to pass time. Recreating an atmosphere where inmates are kept in solitary confinement to reflect on their criminal acts, completely silence is enforced at all times; during work, in the dining hall and while marching is something that we should go back to doing. Forcing inmates to move in the “lockstep shuffle,” regardless of their race gives inmates no control over the guards or the system. If inmates get out of line, there is no reason they should not be punished severely with a whip or other flogging methods. Prisoners should and need to be punished.

            While some can argue that such strict regiment is unconstitutional and violates their rights, prisoners should not have rights. They have broken the laws of society and therefore need to be punished. There are no cons with The Auburn System, only positives.

            The positives of such severe and harsh punishment, while it could allow some inmates to go crazy from the complete silence; it is a viable form of punishment. Creating an environment with these conditions would break their desire to reoffend, in turn lowering prison population, saving millions of dollars in funding which in turn can be put into the education system like it should be and overall lower crime rate, based on the fear of the punishment to come.

The Auburn System, if brought back into the correction institution, could alleviate many of the problems the system is currently facing. It would put control back into the prison staff’s hands, while lowering the recidivism rate of offenders and also making those who have no yet committed a crime, think twice before doing so. Strict regulation and regimentation of the prisoners would create an atmosphere that no one wants to be in for any period of time. Prisoners, while locked behind the high walls, still have it far too easy and sometimes easier than the honest hard working people on the outside, which is one of the primary reasons why the justice system needs a major overhaul in the form of punishment such as The Auburn System.

References

Garland, D. (1993). Punishment and Modern Society. Unv. Chicago Press. 

Chicago.Wines H (2009). Punishment and Reformation. General Books, LLC. New York.

The Three Strikes Debacle

California originated the three-strikes law in March of 1994 and in theory it was an excellent way of deterring offenders from becoming repeat offenders. This created the likelihood that the offender could be put away for life depending upon conviction of a third felony. The three-strikes law bases itself around a minimum sentence of twenty-five years to life in state or federal prison, regardless of what the offense is.  However, this created a larger problem and quadrupled the prisons populations. What voters thought to be an excellent solution to repeat offenders created more negatives, rather than positives within the criminal justice system.

            The “three-strikes and your out” law was in essence a solution to a severe problem of high recidivism rates in California. It was originated to either deter or keep repeat offenders in jail, however with California having a roughly 70% recidivism rate, this ultimately led to the problem we see now, which is overcrowding in the state prisons. The California state prison system is meant to hold roughly 80,000 inmates, statewide. The current population of the state prison system is somewhere near 175,000 inmates (The Economist), easily doubling the systems maximum occupancy. How did this happen? It’s easy to explain because there are not many prevention programs, and the ones that are in place today, are nearly impossible for inmates enroll into, further adding to the recidivism rate. After two felony “strikes,” regardless of the second sentence term, the third felony is an automatic minimum of twenty-five years to life in prison. The third felony strike can range in severity, from minimal offenses to obvious severe criminal offenses. Now, I am not in favor of criminals not being punished for their offenses; however the overcrowding we see today is a result of some third felony convictions being unjust in certain cases.

The California criminal justice system is locking up more people under the three-strikes law for petty theft (petty theft in California qualifies as under $400 face value), minor drug possession and various minor parole violations than we are for serious offenses such as murder, assault and rape. We’ve seen these unjust convictions time and time again in the last sixteen years of this law being in effect. In 1998, we see an unjust conviction in the case of Larry South (http://www.economist.com/node/16693779). South, having previous violations, including two felony accounts, which should not have been felonies in the first place based on the circumstances, was caught stealing $29 worth of plumbing supplies from a local Home Depot. The prosecuting attorney, based solely on the fact that there were two previous felonies, sought and demanded life in prison over $30 worth of plumbing supplies. Life in prison for stealing plumbing supplies, strikes me as a violation of the 8^th amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Life in prison for a minor theft is flat out inhumane.

 Each prisoner costs California taxpayers roughly $50,000 a year for medical, food and other care. Some can argue that prisoners have better care and health coverage than most law-abiding citizens, however I will save this for another post. My point is, these minor felony offenses can and should be served in other ways such as community service, work projects and other society improving ‘punishments,’ to better improve their contribution to society. We should only be locking up serious criminal offenders; murders, rapists, human traffickers, and other larger scale thieves. The previously mentioned alternative course of actions would cost taxpayers less, allowing for more funding to be put towards the educational system, while also improving offender’s behaviors by not placing them in prison where they learn more techniques to successfully offend from other acquaintances and overall, lower our severe overcrowded prison population.

References

Cooley's Law: Mandatory Sentencing in California. 

http://www.economist.com/node/16693779

California Three Strikes Defense Lawyers

http://www.shouselaw.com/three-strikes.html

Three Strikes and You're In

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-brauchli/three-strikes-and-youre-i_b_252473.html